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 Dec 15, 2017 6:21 am

James S Saint wrote:Do you understand what a definition is?
def·i·ni·tion
ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
2. the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

I didn't ask to define "Reality". I know that one.
re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/
noun
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"
synonyms: the real world, real life, actuality; More
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

I asked for a definition of "realities" (plural). The definition of "Reality" has no plural to it, so your "realites" must be something different.

Reality = something that exist, existence.
Kant had argued 'exist' is not a predicate.
Existence is always predicated on something.
Therefore reality is always predicated on something.

As above,
Reality = the state of things as they actually exist
I have demonstrated there are many states of things which 'things' actually exist depending on the Framework and Systems a reality is realized.
As with the many states [conditions], therefore there are many "realities."

Note I have already demonstrated to you the different conditional realities?

I had requested, show me how can you prove there is ONLY ONE REALITY?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:45 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Reality = something that exist, existence.
Kant had argued 'exist' is not a predicate.
Existence is always predicated on something.
Therefore reality is always predicated on something.

I really don't care what Kant argued, or rather what you think that Kant argued.

Prismatic567 wrote:As above,
Reality = the state of things as they actually exist
I have demonstrated there are many states of things which 'things' actually exist depending on the Framework and Systems a reality is realized.
As with the many states [conditions], therefore there are many "realities."

Well, then you misunderstand the word "exist".

In your explanation about water having many POSSIBLE states, you failed to point out that water can only be in one of those states at any particular time (not that part of the water can't be in a different state than another). When you have steam, you do not have ice (except as a different portion then it would be a combination).

    Reality is whatever exists AT THAT TIME, not whatever might exist at some other time.

So are you trying to talk about Bohr's many worlds ontology, wherein every possibility supposedly exists in a "parallel universe"?

Prismatic567 wrote:I had requested, show me how can you prove there is ONLY ONE REALITY?

Well that would be rather trivial. Something either exists or it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree?
If it exists then it is a part of reality (by definition). If it doesn't exist, it is not a part of reality.
Therefore
    ALL that exists = existence = Reality = one Reality.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:25 am

Water can exist in three states as steam or water or ice. Each state represents a different reality as pertaining to water. But these states can
simultaneously exist as well just not in the same space at the same time. Water does not appear in one state everywhere due to temperature
variations on Earth. All these specific realities are a part of the absolute reality which is the totality of existence. Also known as the Universe
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:44 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Water can exist in three states as steam or water or ice. Each state represents a different [possible] reality as pertaining to water. But these states can simultaneously exist as well just not in the same space at the same time. Water does not appear in one state everywhere due to temperature variations on Earth. All these specific realities are a part of the absolute reality which is the totality of existence. Also known as the Universe

I think that might have solidified his confusion.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:08 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Reality = something that exist, existence.
Kant had argued 'exist' is not a predicate.
Existence is always predicated on something.
Therefore reality is always predicated on something.

I really don't care what Kant argued, or rather what you think that Kant argued.
This is the point why your philosophical views are so narrow and shallow.
Kant's argument re 'Existence is not a predicate' is one very notable argument on the related topic. You need to understand [not necessary agree] to get my point.

Prismatic567 wrote:As above,
Reality = the state of things as they actually exist
I have demonstrated there are many states of things which 'things' actually exist depending on the Framework and Systems a reality is realized.
As with the many states [conditions], therefore there are many "realities."

Well, then you misunderstand the word "exist".

In your explanation about water having many POSSIBLE states, you failed to point out that water can only be in one of those states at any particular time (not that part of the water can't be in a different state than another). When you have steam, you do not have ice (except as a different portion then it would be a combination).

    Reality is whatever exists AT THAT TIME, not whatever might exist at some other time.

So are you trying to talk about Bohr's many worlds ontology, wherein every possibility supposedly exists in a "parallel universe"?
What???

I am not emphasizing on possibilities.
Many such realities are already in existence all over the world [or in the Universe] wherever the conditions exist.
Whatever is H2O [scientifically] such can exist as liquids, clouds in the sky, mists in the cold hills, steam in a boiler, ice in the Arctic and wherever the temperature drop below 0, thus depending on the condition H20 is embedded in AT THE SAME TIME anywhere in the Universe.

Say, a living-thing living within a planet of gas, clouds and steam, mist will never understand the reality of liquid water. A fish living in the deepest part of the ocean will never experience H20 as steam, mists, clouds or ice.

So there are different realities to H20 [same or different H20 molecules] depending on the conditions H20 is subjected to.
Are there any real permanent H20.
No! H2O can be broken into Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms.
Hydrogen & Oxygen atoms can be broken into protons and electron, to quarks, etc.

Same Time?
Say we have a very small drop of water.
If three people are looking at it at the same time, one with normal sight, another looking through an electron microscope, another a more power electron microscope.
At a fixed specific time and conditions, the observers reported the following real observations;

    1. A small drop of water
    2. 100 molecules of H20
    3. 200 hydrogen atoms & 100 oxygen atoms

So which is the real thing at that fixed specific time?
All the above observations are real to the observers but they have to be qualified to the instruments they used to observe whatever.
None of the three observers can claim theirs is the absolute real thing they observed except by their qualifications.

So you tell me what is the REAL thing that has the quality of H20 or water?

There is no way you can ever nail down that really real thing or that ONE REALITY because such an idea is an impossibility.


Prismatic567 wrote:I had requested, show me how can you prove there is ONLY ONE REALITY?

Well that would be rather trivial. Something either exists or it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree?
If it exists then it is a part of reality (by definition). If it doesn't exist, it is not a part of reality.
Therefore
    ALL that exists = existence = Reality = one Reality.
=;
Don't try to fool me with your deception.
Where did that 'one' come from??

If it exists it can only be part of a qualified reality and there can be many qualified realities.
There is no absolute reality that is unqualified and totally unconditional.

Note my explanation to the concept of many realities as qualified to various conditions which can be easily verified and proven.
There cannot be 'ONE reality,' you are pulling it out of air.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:10 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Many such realities are already in existence all over the world [or in the Universe] wherever the conditions exist.
Whatever is H2O [scientifically] such can exist as liquids, clouds in the sky, mists in the cold hills, steam in a boiler, ice in the Arctic and wherever the temperature drop below 0, thus depending on the condition H20 is embedded in AT THE SAME TIME anywhere in the Universe.

So here you are defining "a reality" as "any portion of all reality".

Prismatic567 wrote:At a fixed specific time and conditions, the observers reported the following real observations

And with that, you are defining "a reality" as "whatever an observer reports".
Subjectivism (learn the word for the next time someone asks). And its just a hair's breadth from Solipsism.

Prismatic567 wrote:
    1. A small drop of water
    2. 100 molecules of H20
    3. 200 hydrogen atoms & 100 oxygen atoms

So which is the real thing at that fixed specific time?

Seriously? It takes a pretty serious idiot to not be able to figure that one out.

      "You're not a human. You are just cells.
      Oh wait. You are not cells. You are just molecules.
      Oh no, no. You are not molecules. You are just atoms.
      No, no. You are not atoms, you are just subatomic particles.
      No, no, no. You are not subatomic particles, you are just energy.
      Now I see. You are just a battery.
      Would you charge my cellphone for me?"
      :icon-rolleyes:

So your definition of "realities" is "any portions of all Reality or observations of such portions."

How many "realities" are there?
I imagine you would claim an infinity of them.

Our definition of "The One Reality" would then be "the total collection of all realities" (using your definition of "realities").
Last edited by James S Saint on Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:22 pm, edited 1 time 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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Empirical Possible Multiple Realities: Schizoid Personal

Postby Arminius » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:08 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:You say or at least suggest that you are against monotheists in particular.

The typical monotheisms (more accurately called "henotheisms") are Judaism and Islam. No other religion is monotheistic (more accurately called "henotheistic").

Christianity is no purely monotheistic religion, because the Christian God can be (1) God Father, (2) God Son, (3) God Holy Ghost, and he has a (4) mother too, the so-called "Mother of God". (4 does not equal 1.) If a god has a mother, then this has nothing to do with monotheism; if a god can be three different gods, then this has nothing to do with monotheism. (3 does not equal 1.) So Christianity is more polytheism than a monotheism.
Your views above are too shallow and narrow. I agree there are various forms of monotheism, but what is critical here is the substance or essence. Note 'monotheism'

Your views are too shallow and narrow. You have absolutely no argument at all, because your statements are hollow phrases. There is nothing behind it. You have merely proven that you have proven nothing at all, that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.

Prismatic567 wrote:
Wiki wrote:The broader definition of monotheism characterizes the traditions of Bábism, the Bahá'í Faith, Balinese Hinduism,[9] Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Hindu sects such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, Islam, Judaism, Mandaeism, Rastafari, Seicho no Ie, Sikhism, Tengrism (Tangrism), Tenrikyo (Tenriism), Yazidism, and Zoroastrianism, and elements of pre-monotheistic thought are found in early religions such as Atenism, Ancient Chinese religion, and Yahwism.

In essence, Monotheism is the believe in ONE God that stand by itself [Islam] or overrides whatever sub-gods or forms of God that are believed, e.g. Christianity, Hindu Brahman.

It seems that you have not read my post or, as I already said before, that you are not capable of reading. Try to understand that your above quote and commentary on it do not concern the central statement of my text in my post . So, here you are again too shallow and narrow.

Prismatic567 wrote:
Polytheistic gods do not have to be and are not perfect or, as you say, "absolutely perfect". A god does not have to be such a god - all polytheistic religions and also all (namely: two [see above]) monotheistic religions show this clearly. The god of the Jews and the Muslims is not absolutely good, but more evil than good. And polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: "monotheism"). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are "undying humans", so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said "undying humans" as the said "projections of the humans". So, their gods were not "absolutely perfect" - their gods were much more unperfect than perfect.

So your claim that a god must be "absolutely perfect" is nonsense, based on your delusions and angst. God can be a principle, God can be the first mover, God can be the first cause ... etc., but God does not have to be "absolutely perfect". An "absolutely perfect" God is your wishful thinking, based on your delusions and angst; if this were not so, then you would not do what you want to do because of your delusions and angst: attack him and the theists in order to get rid of your delusions and angst. So, all your statements that are based on logical fallacies have primarily and mainly to do with your delusions and your angst.

I have already explained why the idea of God as believed and psychologically intended will and must ultimately gravitate and be reduced to an absolutely perfect God.
It has to be because no rational [basic] will accept their God to be inferior to another, i.e. having their god having to kiss the ass of another more inferior God.

You have explained nothing except the fact that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.

An absolutely perfect God is not needed. The Ancient Greek religion worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Kant did NOT say "God is an Impossibility".

Postby Arminius » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:30 am

Meno_ wrote:The most rational of men, the ancient Greeks, were ok with inferior gods who held traits of jealousy, anger, violence, immortality, and the like.

They were more human, oh so human, the highest god was the cause of their fall. Does this imply an anthropomorphic schizophrenia between Philosophers and the gods of the common man?

The Ancient Greeks were not "the most rational of men", but they did indeed not need an absolutely perfect God. Their gods were more like the Ancient Greek humans themselves. Their gods were projections of Ancient Greek humans. Their religion worked perfectly. So, the religion (and not God) must be a perfect one to them. Yes.

Not only the Ancient Greek religion gives evidence that an "absolutely perfect" (Prismatic) God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. It worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.

The henotheistic/monotheistic religions give evidence too that an "absolutely perfect" God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. Each God of the each henotheistic/monotheistic religion is not and does not have to be "absolutely perfect".

So, Prismatic's pseudo argument or bogus argument that "absolute perfection is impossible" (first "premise" - which is false), that "God must be absolutely perfect" (second "premise" - which is false), so that "God is an impossibility" ("conclusion" - which is false), is an absolutely perfect case of a logical fallacy. (1) Absolute perfection is not impossible; (2) God does not have to be absolutely perfect; (3) God is not impossible. This can only be proven by logic, thus not by, for example, ethics or aesthetics or Prismatic's schizoid delusions (see e.g.: "empirical possible multiple realities").

Sources:

Prismatic567 wrote:There such a Reality cannot be related to the empirical possible multiple realities.

- viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&start=475#p2687957 .

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
    So what you have to prove and demonstrate is that there is no Reality, no "uni-verse".
My point;

1. To the theist, "God is Reality itself" ( F A L S E ! )
2. God is an Impossibility - argument re OP ( F A L S E ! )
3. Therefore 'Reality' [theists'] is an impossibility. ( F A L S E ! )

- viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&start=475#p2687957 .
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:12 pm

James S Saint wrote:Prism, we need for you to define your term, "realities".


James, I need for you to take your definition of a term like "realities" and note how you connect the dots between the logic imparted in the definition, your understanding of the Real God, and instances out in the world of actual human interactions where both can be intertwined in order to make clearer the points that you raise.
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: 26552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:23 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Many such realities are already in existence all over the world [or in the Universe] wherever the conditions exist.
Whatever is H2O [scientifically] such can exist as liquids, clouds in the sky, mists in the cold hills, steam in a boiler, ice in the Arctic and wherever the temperature drop below 0, thus depending on the condition H20 is embedded in AT THE SAME TIME anywhere in the Universe.

So here you are defining "a reality" as "any portion of all reality".

Prismatic567 wrote:At a fixed specific time and conditions, the observers reported the following real observations

And with that, you are defining "a reality" as "whatever an observer reports".
Subjectivism (learn the word for the next time someone asks). And its just a hair's breadth from Solipsism.

Prismatic567 wrote:
    1. A small drop of water
    2. 100 molecules of H20
    3. 200 hydrogen atoms & 100 oxygen atoms

So which is the real thing at that fixed specific time?

Seriously? It takes a pretty serious idiot to not be able to figure that one out.

      "You're not a human. You are just cells.
      Oh wait. You are not cells. You are just molecules.
      Oh no, no. You are not molecules. You are just atoms.
      No, no. You are not atoms, you are just subatomic particles.
      No, no, no. You are not subatomic particles, you are just energy.
      Now I see. You are just a battery.
      Would you charge my cellphone for me?"
      :icon-rolleyes:

So your definition of "realities" is "any portions of all Reality or observations of such portions."

How many "realities" are there?
I imagine you would claim an infinity of them.

Our definition of "The One Reality" would then be "the total collection of all realities" (using your definition of "realities").

What wrong with 'subjectivism' [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

As for Solipsism, it is an incoherent view.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
So don't be philosophically small minded and bang on this point to counter anything.

I have often refer to 'Reality' in general as "All there is" but it is meaningless within an empirical-rational reality.

You can define "The One Reality" as above but only in thoughts but such is not possible and realizable within an empirical-rational reality.
This is the same with my claim re God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

I have defined reality in this case as conditional upon a Framework and System, so there can be as many realities as the number of defined Framework and System. The most credible reality is that of the scientific reality which is conditional. This is scientific reality one can grip upon, whereas your definition above is baseless and groundless without any hinges to hold onto.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:09 am

Prismatic567 wrote:What wrong with 'subjectivism' [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

What is wrong with Solipsism?
Your "intersubjective consensus" is merely Social Solipsism.

Prismatic567 wrote:As for Solipsism, it is an incoherent view.

Precisely.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have often refer to 'Reality' in general as "All there is" but it is meaningless within an empirical-rational reality.

You're a bit meaningless within an empirical-rational reality.

Prismatic567 wrote:You can define "The One Reality" as above but only in thoughts but such is not possible and realizable within an empirical-rational reality.
This is the same with my claim re God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

And there is an example.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have defined reality in this case as conditional upon a Framework and System, so there can be as many realities as the number of defined Framework and System.

Meaningless scapegoat clauses ... [-( :icon-rolleyes:
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby ezak42 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:10 am

a perfectly static vacuum- an area devoid of motion- can't exist because, the universe has a constant course of energy radiating.
ezak42
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:26 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:02 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Many such realities are already in existence all over the world [or in the Universe] wherever the conditions exist.
Whatever is H2O [scientifically] such can exist as liquids, clouds in the sky, mists in the cold hills, steam in a boiler, ice in the Arctic and wherever the temperature drop below 0, thus depending on the condition H20 is embedded in AT THE SAME TIME anywhere in the Universe.

So here you are defining "a reality" as "any portion of all reality".

Prismatic567 wrote:At a fixed specific time and conditions, the observers reported the following real observations

And with that, you are defining "a reality" as "whatever an observer reports".
Subjectivism (learn the word for the next time someone asks). And its just a hair's breadth from Solipsism.

Prismatic567 wrote:
    1. A small drop of water
    2. 100 molecules of H20
    3. 200 hydrogen atoms & 100 oxygen atoms

So which is the real thing at that fixed specific time?

Seriously? It takes a pretty serious idiot to not be able to figure that one out.

      "You're not a human. You are just cells.
      Oh wait. You are not cells. You are just molecules.
      Oh no, no. You are not molecules. You are just atoms.
      No, no. You are not atoms, you are just subatomic particles.
      No, no, no. You are not subatomic particles, you are just energy.
      Now I see. You are just a battery.
      Would you charge my cellphone for me?"
      :icon-rolleyes:

So your definition of "realities" is "any portions of all Reality or observations of such portions."

How many "realities" are there?
I imagine you would claim an infinity of them.

Our definition of "The One Reality" would then be "the total collection of all realities" (using your definition of "realities").

What wrong with 'subjectivism' [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: "John sees Mary". Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: "Mary sees John" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary" (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: "John sees Mary, and Mary sees John" (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or "John and Mary see each other" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John" (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or "John and Mary are seen by each other" (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not "in fashion", then this does not mean that they have vanished.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:52 am

Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What wrong with 'subjectivism' [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: "John sees Mary". Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: "Mary sees John" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary" (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: "John sees Mary, and Mary sees John" (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or "John and Mary see each other" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John" (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or "John and Mary are seen by each other" (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not "in fashion", then this does not mean that they have vanished.
Note we are discussing Philosophy as the main 'subject' and not linguistics. Note the limitations of Language Games [Wittgenstein].

Even with linguistics when analyzed philosophically,

    "John [subject] sees Mary [object]" at t1, location X
    "Mary [subject] sees John [object]"at t1 location X

Now from a factual analysis, at the same time [to most exact nano-second] in the same place and conditions, one can clearly understand John and Mary are 'subject' and 'object' at the same time and conditions. There are also two subjects and two objects existing at the same time and conditions.

In a deeper philosophical analysis,
John [subject] can see Mary subjectively or objectively.

If John sees Mary subjectively, it is only his subjective views, i.e. based on his own conditions. In this case, it is possible for John in his subjective POV to see Mary as a snake [nevertheless still an 'object'], if John suffer from kind of mental problem.
Thus the individual will subjectively experience and cognize things from his/her individual conditions and experiences.

For John to see Mary objectively as a living human person and not something else, there is a need for intersubjective interaction and consensus to agree what a living human person is.
Factually, if one use a electron microscope to see 'Mary' then the fact is there is only a bundle of molecules. A blind bat will cognize Mary in terms of a sonar image.
How John cognized Mary objectively as a living human person with various features is based on an inherent process of intersubjective consensus [conducted by our generic DNA] within humanity.

Thus subjectivity is one person's view.
Objectivity is many peoples' shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.
Note this is grounded on the DNA which core is generic to all humans.
The most reliable objective knowledge is scientific theories and they are based on intersubjective consensus after individual subjective conjectures are refined/polished.

Note Subjectivity from the philosophical context;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy)

Note Intersubjectivity in Philosophy:
Contemporarily, intersubjectivity is a major topic in both the analytic and the continental traditions of philosophy. Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even metaphysical levels.
For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:15 am

Inter subjectivity is fundamental to science because single first person perspectives can not be accepted
as valid. As there is no means by which they can be tested for bias. It does not equate to objective truth
however. But it does reduce as much as possible any subjective interpretations of observable phenomena
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:34 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What wrong with 'subjectivism' [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: "John sees Mary". Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: "Mary sees John" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary" (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: "John sees Mary, and Mary sees John" (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or "John and Mary see each other" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John" (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or "John and Mary are seen by each other" (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not "in fashion", then this does not mean that they have vanished.

Note ....

Note ...

Note ....

Note ....

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

And my example "John sees Mary" includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged "critique" does not change anything. Furthermore, your "critique" is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a "social" situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become "designed" (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

You are missing the point again, and your alleged "critique" is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities".

There is only one reality.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:40 am

Arminius wrote:Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.
It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

But philosophically one need to understand the limitations of language. You don't seem to get this point. I suggest you brush up on the Philosophy of Linguistic [as wide as possible] and note Wittgenstein's Language Games. Note Chomsky versus others.

And my example "John sees Mary" includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged "critique" does not change anything. Furthermore, your "critique" is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.
Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

It is an objective fact that there are subjects.
My point is,
your "It is an objective fact that there are subjects" is based on intersubjectivity.

So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a "social" situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become "designed" (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

There is only one reality.
I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me 'what is the really real apple on the table'?

Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.

Contemporarily, intersubjectivity is a major topic in both the analytic and the continental traditions of philosophy. Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even metaphysical levels.
For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects.


And note Russell's point;

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.


There is no real objective table but rather an intersubjective one depending on the Framework and System [Leibniz, Berkeley, Science, etc.] relied upon.

You are missing the point again, and your alleged "critique" is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities".
Subconsciously your know you cannot defend your position, that is why you are resorting to derogatory remarks rather than presenting credible arguments. I expect James and yourself will continue to condemn me ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments. I suggest you read and reflect wider and deeper on the whole range of philosophy [relevant to this forum].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:34 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Philosophy without language is not possible.

Then you should understand why talking to you is pointless.
You invent your own language to suit to your sermons (not to mention ignoring any and all contradiction).
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:44 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Philosophy without language is not possible.

Then you should understand why talking to you is pointless.
You invent your own language to suit to your sermons (not to mention ignoring any and all contradiction).
I don't give a damn on the above.
If there is any credible counter argument [from anyone] against the OP, I will welcome and respond.

    PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
    P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

So far you have countered with the following;

    1. No such thing as absolute perfection - I have trashed it.
    2. God is never assigned 'perfection' - I have trashed it
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:48 am

As i have said, you invent and you lie.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:09 am

James S Saint wrote:As i have said, you invent and you lie.
The above one-liner is evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity and capacity re this point. Check with 'Snark' who is also very good with such 'tantrums.'
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:19 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:As i have said, you invent and you lie.
The above one-liner is evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity and capacity re this point. Check with 'Snark' who is also very good with such 'tantrums.'

You might want to note, even count, how many disagree with you and eventually see no point in trying to reason with you. They have all explained precisely why. You ignore and then lie about how you defeated them. Arrested Adolescence..
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:49 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:As i have said, you invent and you lie.
The above one-liner is evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity and capacity re this point. Check with 'Snark' who is also very good with such 'tantrums.'

You might want to note, even count, how many disagree with you and eventually see no point in trying to reason with you. They have all explained precisely why. You ignore and then lie about how you defeated them. Arrested Adolescence..
As I had stated I don't give a damn with your above opinions.

If any, fine, but my main purpose is I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is a discussion forum, those who agree [if any] are not likely to be involved in a serious discussion on this issue.

What is important to me is for someone to raise credible counters against my arguments. I appreciate you and others have raised objections, but they are not strong ones.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Zero_Sum » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:28 pm

While me and Prismatic don't agree on much as an atheist I also believe that existence of God is impossible in terms of physical evidence existing separate from mind where faith or belief is not grounds of evidence at all.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:57 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:While me and Prismatic don't agree on much as an atheist I also believe that existence of God is impossible in terms of physical evidence existing separate from mind where faith or belief is not grounds of evidence at all.

As a theist, I agree.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users