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 Ecmandu » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:57 am

James S Saint wrote:Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change"). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.


I alluded to this earlier...

Walking is a static platonic ideal or form, from which we can notice the act of walking. The platonic ideal or form is not affectance. I will assert without any reservation, affectance is not the defining characteristic of existence.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:09 am

Does the ground of being have an an affect on the things grounded in it?
Last edited by Snark on Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Snark
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:16 am

Snark wrote:Does the ground of being have an an affect on the things grounded in it?


In terms of ideal platonic forms.. "the ground of being", they don't need to act of them to be, the platonic ideal of walking, in the eternal, needs no act of walking to assert itself on this plane, it exists regardless. This is where James is wrong
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:19 am

Snark wrote:Does the ground of being have an an affect on the things grounded in it?

If it is the changing itself, yes - Affect upon Affect.
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: 25805
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:23 am

James S Saint wrote:
Snark wrote:Does the ground of being have an an affect on the things grounded in it?

If it is the changing itself, yes - Affect upon Affect.


Affect upon affect is stasis ....James. Tsk, tsk
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:53 am

Not even close.
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: 25805
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:03 am

James S Saint wrote:Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change"). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.

Makes sense to me. :)
Snark
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:44 am

Snark wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change"). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.

Makes sense to me. :)
Without qualification it is nonsense to me.

The three natural relations are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect.
Of these, Hume tells us that causation is the most prevalent. But cause and effect is also one of the philosophical relations, where the relata have no connecting principle, instead being artificially juxtaposed by the mind.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/


Hume is known for applying this standard rigorously to causation and necessity. Instead of taking the notion of causation for granted, Hume challenges us to consider what experience allows us to know about cause and effect.

Hume shows that experience does not tell us much.
Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined.
Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen.
Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity.

This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction--that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world. Among Hume scholars it is a matter of debate how seriously Hume means us to take this conclusion and whether causation consists wholly in constant conjunction.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/


In the above case where A caused effect B, both A and B are empirical entities and the whole process in accordance to Hume is basically a psychological process.

In the case 'God cause effect B', there are various philosophical issues;

    1. The first point is cause and effect [regardless of real or not ] is psychological.
    2. Effect B may be empirical and can be proven but
    3. IF effect B is non-empirical, then there is no way of proving it empirically.
    4. God [unprovable based on mere faith] has no empirical basis.
    5. God [an ought] can never be equated with "is" [empirical effects].

Therefore 'God cause effect B' makes no sense, i.e. it is non-sense in terms of empirical-rational reality.

The only sense 'God cause effect B' has is in the psychological sense since it is the psychological sense [re Hume] that trigger it.

As I had always stated, the only real basis of 'God exists' is merely psychological and has nothing to do directly within an empirical-rational reality.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:59 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change"). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.

Makes sense to me. :)
Without qualification it is nonsense to me.

Oh really.

    Can you name something known to exist yet has no affect upon anything at all?

    Can you name anything that has affect upon something yet is known to not exist?

Who is actually the shallow one here.
:lol:
Prismatic567 wrote:
The three natural relations are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect.
Of these, Hume tells us that causation is the most prevalent. But cause and effect is also one of the philosophical relations, where the relata have no connecting principle, instead being artificially juxtaposed by the mind.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

It's amusing that you revere Hume and Kant so much. Neither were the greatest philosophers in the world. But then for those of you who cannot think for yourselves, I guess you have to turn to someone. The sad thing is that you can't seem to understand any of them, yet still preach their names from your little soapbox, hoping to leech an ounce of respect.

But since logic is new to you, let me remind you of a common logic fallacy which you tend to ignore:
  • Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

"It's true cuz my smart man said it's true".

And since you spout Science as the new savior of humanity, let me remind you:
The foundation of Science and the motto of the Royal Science of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, the oldest such society still in existence.
    Nullius in Verba

"Take No one's Word"


If you can't figure it out for yourself, who are you but someone else's preacher?
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: 25805
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:33 pm

It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

That last part is important James.
SAPERE AUDE!


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


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

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:42 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

That last part is important James.

Quite true.
Did you do any of the experiments?
Did Prism?
Or have you both merely taken their word for it?

Hundreds of people saw Jesus walk on the water.
Millions prayed and got their wish.
So do you believe them?


And btw since you have tossed your hat in,

    Can you name something known to exist yet has no affect upon anything at all?

    Can you name anything that has affect upon something yet is known to not exist?
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: 25805
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:47 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

That last part is important James.

Me too. I've always had an aversion to authority.
Snark
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:56 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Generally 'ontology' in its widest sense is,
    "Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations."
My take re 'ontology' is restricted to an existence that is independent of human conditions, e.g. Plato Forms, God and the likes.


Still, in the broadest sense, any ontological assessment must eventually come around to the part where any actual God and any actual human interactions are probed and understood.

And then judged?

The part that you speak of here, while important technically of course, is of less interest to me.

My "thing" here is more to explore the extent which the technical arguments make contact with conflicting human behaviors that [on threads like this one] are interwined in turn in conjectures about God and religion.

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


Again, there's what any particular individual thinks is real "in her head", and her capacity to demonstrate that it is in fact real for all other rational human beings.

Really, when you think about it, what else do we have?

Prismatic567 wrote:It is advised to understand Kant thoroughly one need at least 3 years full time or 5 years part time reading and research on Kant's philosophy. I have done the above.
So it is not easy to explain in few sentences to you how Kant demonstrated 'ontology is an impossibility.


How does understanding Kant bring us any closer to a God, the God? How did Kant bring a God, the God any further into existence? Other than "philosophically"?


Prismatic567 wrote:My point was, a thoroughly understanding of Kant will enable a person to realize philosophically, the idea of God is an illusion. It does not bring any one closer to a God.


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

Prismatic567 wrote:According to Kant, the idea of God arose when the theists [out of psychological factors -mine] untie whatever empirical basis to the thought to conclude the existence of a God which in fact is an illusion.


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

And how is this God implicated in the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave. Which of course is always my own focus here: How ought one to live?

With or without God.


Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated before, ALL humans are infected with a 'virus' that generate an existential crisis in the psyche. The virus in the majority are active while in others it is dormant.
Because the existential crisis generate terrible subliminal angst, a rationalized thought [emptied of the essential empirical base] of God is a very effective balms to soothe those angst. This belief in God thus provide real psychological security to theists to deal with a turbulent reality.

The fact that there are others who resort to non-theistic approaches [more efficient & not evil laden] to deal with that inherent viral existential crisis is indication theism is not the only way.


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

Then what:

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

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

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate.


Okay, implicate this assumption in a particular context. The murderer comes to your door and asks for the whereabouts of a woman he intends to kill. What does it mean here to state that "Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate."


Prismatic567 wrote:The 'exist' in 'God exists' is not a predicate.
With a predicate, then it is 'God exists as a thought only'.


From my frame of mind, this frame of mind is just a way to avoid bringing God down out of the clouds of abstraction. Whereas in the context above, you either lie or you do not lie to the murderer. And God then either figures into your choice or He doesn't.

Prismatic567 wrote:Kant's moral framework do include Absolute Moral Rules but they are only to act a guides and never to be enforced in practice. In 'the Murderer - lying' example, Kant was merely discussing the workings of an absolute moral rule, and he NEVER advocated such an absolute moral rule [morality] must be enforced in practice [ethics]. Kant agreed with Hume, an 'OUGHT' [morality] cannot be an "IS' [ethics] but nevertheless both can work in complement to each other.
So in a real [in practical] 'Murderer - lying' scenario, the man at the door will have to 'lie' [a lesser evil] to counter a greater evil of assisting a murder to kill.


Technically, this is either true or it is not true. But it does not alter the fate of the woman if you tell the murderer where she is hiding. Instead, it seems to take the gut-wrenching agony of that choice up into the stratosphere of abstraction. All these technical points are batted back and forth...but the woman is either dead or she is not.

Whereas from my frame of mind, you will choose a behavior here predicated largely on the accumulation of experiences in your life that predispose you to go in one rather than another direction. It will all revolve around your own understanding of the situation. Who is this woman? Do you know her? Do you love her? Do you care if she is murdered? Has the murderer threatened to kill you if you don't talk? What are the actual perceived consequences of going one way or the other?

In other words, a profoundly problematic existential contraption.

That's not how it works though. Out in the world that we interact in from day to day to day, one only has to believe in the existence of God. After all, the behaviors that we choose [which precipitate actual consequences] are predicated not on what can be demonstrated to exist but on what we have come to believe exists.

That's why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able to demonstrate it one way or the other.


Prismatic567 wrote:Note we are in a philosophical forum and thus the need for intellectual integrity. It would be an insult to one's intelligence to accept an illusion [proven] as really real, i.e. within an empirical rational reality.

One cannot present the idea of God as really real [empirical rational reality] without making the appropriate qualification that God is in fact illusory within an empirical rational reality .


Yet you are assuming that intellectual integrity here revolves around the assumption that you have in fact proven your point. But your point is [from my frame of mind] just another intellectual contraption that in no way is able to grasp the totality of existence itself. And God is certainly one possible explanation for existence.

How on earth then have you demonstrated that in fact God is not the explanation?

Again: the staggering gap that almost certainly exists between what you construe "empirical rational reality" to be [here and now] on a cosmological scale and what any particular mere mortal must know to make that gap go away.

In other words:

Prismatic567 wrote:Theists claim their God is real to the extent of being empirically-rationally real, e.g. listening to their prayers and answering them. On this basis, theists must prove their God is real via an empirical-rational basis. But theists cannot do that except by FAITH which is not empirically based.


Yes, I agree. But this doesn't bring the atheists any closer to demonstrating the impossibility of an existing God. Other than in a "world of words" emanating from a set of speculative assumptions nestled "in their heads".

Short of actually understanding why there is something instead of nothing -- and why this something and not something else -- we are all still in the same boat here. It's just that some insist that, on the contrary, they have actually figured it all out.

Okay, I note, then demonstrate that to us. Why should we believe you? How would you go about -- empirically, materially, phenomenally -- confirming to us that your own set of assumptions reflect the optimal frame of mind here?

Your "proof" --- a proof "with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility" --- is [to me] just the flip side of James Saint defining -- analyzing -- the Real God into existence.


Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated 'God is an impossibility' as proven [in thoughts via the highest possible rationality] is like a square-circle is an impossibility.
No rational person would doubt a square-circle is an impossibility because there is no deep psychological interest in such a point.


To the extent that you do not construe this is be just an "intellectual contraption" vis a vis the "rational empirical reality" one would need to know in order to encompass an ontological -- teleological? -- understanding of Existence, is the extent to which you fail to grasp my own point here.

In other words, not acknowledging this crucial gap does not make it go away.

Prismatic567 wrote:The original basis of theism is psychological, i.e. a desperate drive to soothe the arising angst pulsating from an existential angst.


Okay, but what then is the original basis of human psychology? Again, we don't even know definitively if it is not just embedded autonomically in the immutable laws of matter that encompass the human brain.

Let alone where the debate regarding God/No God fits into it.

Prismatic567 wrote:This is real and has been recognized by Eastern spiritualities since thousands of years ago who has improved upon theistic methods [potentially malignant] to establish non-theistic methods which are benign.


Explain to me then how the Eastern philosophies are any less ignorant of whatever the explanation is for Existence rather than No Existence. For this Existence rather than some other.

And benign in what particular context regarding what particular behaviors that come into conflict over what particular assumptions regarding what particular God/No God.

How does this not come down to making an existential/political distinction between "one of us" [who are benign] and "one of them" [who are malignant]?

Okay, I note, then demonstrate that to us. Why should we believe you? How would you go about -- empirically, materially, phenomenally -- confirming to us that your own set of assumptions reflect the optimal frame of mind here?


Prismatic567 wrote:I do not expect any one to believe me [100%] based on what I have posted.
What I have posted should be taken a clues and one need to do research on the subject.
However before one can proceed one must first understand the psychological compulsion that is driving one to theism. Using mindfulness one need to navigate to understand and reflect on what is really going on.


Again though:

Beyond the intellectual assumptions that you make in your argument/analysis, how have you demonstrated that rational men and women are obligated to believe you?

And if the psychology here is a compulsion then how would it not become the explanation for why folks seem compelled to embody it? Then it just comes down to the extent to which this compulsion is a manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

Either created or not created by a God, the God. A God, the God either compelled to create it as it is or not.
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: 22707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:02 pm

iambiguous wrote:Beyond the intellectual assumptions that you make in your argument/analysis, how have you demonstrated that rational men and women are obligated to believe you?

That is the bottom line. You can leave out all of your dasein crap.
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: 25805
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:39 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: quote is supposedly attributed to Einstein [disputed];

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.


My own reaction to this sort of deistic/spinozan narrative is always the same:

What "on earth" are we to make of it?!

"For all practical purposes", as it relates to the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side of it, what's the point?

From my frame of mind, it's a "general description" of human interactions on steroids.

Instead, it seems by and large to be a psychological contraption that aims to comfort and console some by intertwining "I" in some cosmological entity. We are somehow "at one with the universe". And somehow that makes the idea of an essentially absurd and meaningless existence that ends for all time to come in oblivion a little less daunting.

But, hey, if someone is able to actually think themselves into believing it --- if it actually works for them --- who am I to disillusion them.

If, in fact, it is a delusion at all.

Prismatic567 wrote: The fact as I noted is the ultimate effectiveness of Buddhism [& other Eastern spiritualities] is too advanced for the masses at the present. This is why at present the Abrahamic religions are more popular, i.e. just believe and viola one is 'saved'.

In addition to crude practices for the masses, Buddhism has a solid Framework and System of knowledge & practices to enable the believer to align optimally with reality san an illusory God and its negative baggage.


For me though this has to be brought down to earth. It has to be intertwined/implicated in particular contexts in which those who embrace Eastern traditions are able to note how it is superior to a Western frame of mind. Knowing that those who embrace Western narratives are going to have their own set of assumptions. And then both perspectives have to be fitted into the nature of political economy; and into the manner in which I construe human interactions as the embodiment of dasein and conflicting goods.

My dilemma in other words.

Prismatic567 wrote: The effectiveness of genuine Buddhism can only be realized upon a high degree of continuous hardwork in the self-development of rewiring one's brain for the purpose. This is why not many people are taking Buddhism seriously at present.


Still: What on earth does this mean? What does it mean to take Buddhism seriously in a particular context, relating to particular human interactions?

Given a particular religious, moral, political etc., conflict, what does it mean to embody more "plasticity"? What particular "effective principles and practices" relating to what particular set of circumstances?

Down here pertaining to the nitty gritty day to day social, political and economic interactions of actual flesh and blood human beings.

Instead, many seem far more intent on embracing a beatific rendition of the forest, than in confronting "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" that is often the day to day reality of the trees.

Unless of course they're an objectivist.
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: 22707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:03 pm

Snark wrote:Prisimatic is right about one thing: ontology — the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations — ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God...


Let's be clear about one thing though...

We are talking about the philosophical studies of one particular species on one particular planet in one particular solar system in one particular galaxy in one particular sector of a universe that may well be but one particular universe in in a multitude of others.

In that context what does it mean to discuss the possibility or the impossibility of an existing God?!!

Sure, our brains are hard-wired to connect the dots between "in my head" and "out in the world". And once you start in on asking questions here, it's inevitable that eventually such a consciousness is going to get around to asking this: Why anything at all?

And: what brought this existence into existence?

And, perhaps, most crucially of all, is there a "reason" for it? Is there a purpose "behind" existence? Where do "I" fit into it?

And how can that not become entangled in the existence of God?

Now, if there is anyone here who is in fact able to provide definitive answers to questions of this sort, by all means, give it a go.

Just don't expect all of us to accept that the manner in which you define the meaning of the words used in one or another scholastic intellectual contraption -- argument, analysis -- ends it all.

You know, other than "in your head".
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: 22707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:23 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:That's why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able to demonstrate it one way or the other.

Prove to your cat that the Internet is real.


More to the point [of the thread], cats don't have an inherent biological capacity to ponder whether it is possible that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist.


James S Saint wrote:Exactly the point.


Exactly what point?

Note to others:

I'm willing to concede that James is making an important point regarding the manner in which our species is able to probe either the possibility or the impossibility of an existing God, and the extent to which our species either can or cannot demonstrate to the species we call cats that the internet is real.

I reacted to that above.

So, what am I missing?

iambiguous wrote:They don't have conflicting value judgments rooted in dasein either.

James S Saint wrote: Neither do reasonably rational people.


Okay, note a particular context in which human value judgments clearly come into conflict. Note how the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here is no more applicable to human beings than to cats.

Afterwards, we'll bring the discussion back around to how a technical/existential understanding of this is intertwined in the manner in which you construe the definition/meaning of the Real God:

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".

What on earth does this mean, James? How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others? And, in particular, when those interactions precipitate a conflict of some sort.
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: 22707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".

What on earth does this mean, James? How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others? And, in particular, when those interactions precipitate a conflict of some sort.

Why haven't you asked that of me before now, rather than all of the years of ranting about how foolish I am?

It is because you are both presumptuous and biased.
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: 25805
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:19 am

James S Saint wrote:Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change"). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.

Prismatic567 wrote:Without qualification it is nonsense to me.

Oh really.
    Can you name something known to exist yet has no affect upon anything at all?
    Can you name anything that has affect upon something yet is known to not exist?

Who is actually the shallow one here. :lol:

Your claim is, 'anything that has effects, exists' is false.
An illusion [e.g. mirage] has effects on the mind but its referent do not exists as real.
God is an illusion that has effects on the mind but God do not exists within empirical-ration reality.

The point here is you cannot generalize on the issue of existence.
One need to qualify existence to a basis, e.g. empirical-rational reality, moral, psychiatric, etc., then prove it is real on a case to case basis.

So, Who is actually the shallow one here. :lol:

It's amusing that you revere Hume and Kant so much. Neither were the greatest philosophers in the world. But then for those of you who cannot think for yourselves, I guess you have to turn to someone. The sad thing is that you can't seem to understand any of them, yet still preach their names from your little soapbox, hoping to leech an ounce of respect.

But since logic is new to you, let me remind you of a common logic fallacy which you tend to ignore:
  • Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

"It's true cuz my smart man said it's true".
You are very ignorant of what is going on within Western Philosophy.

If you review the various polls in google, in the majority of listings, Kant and Hume will appear in their top 10s. E.g.
http://list25.com/25-greatest-philosoph ... ver-lived/

Appeal to authority??
I have never insisted my point is right because Kant or Hume said so.
What I have done is merely used the ideas from Kant and Hume to support various points in addition to the explanations and arguments I have provided together with various other sources.
Note the majority of Philosophical Books made references to various famous philosophers and others, are you accusing them of 'argumentum ad verecundiam.'

And since you spout Science as the new savior of humanity, let me remind you:
The foundation of Science and the motto of the Royal Science of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, the oldest such society still in existence.
    Nullius in Verba

"Take No one's Word"

If you can't figure it out for yourself, who are you but someone else's preacher?
I am not into Scientism, but I had given credit to Science for whatever it [as polished conjectures] is worth. There is no denying Science has a extensive utility for mankind and it is very objective. It is up to the individual and groups to use Science wisely for the progress of humanity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:01 am

Prismatic567 wrote:An illusion [e.g. mirage] has effects on the mind but its referent do not exists as real.

The illusion of the referents is having affects (not "effects"). The "referents" as entities of their own, are not having affects. Thus the referents do not exist. Dreams exist. The characters within do not (except as dream figures).

The exact shallow childlike response I figured you would give.

So try again.
    Can you name something known to exist yet has no affect upon anything at all?

    Can you name anything that has affect upon something yet is known to not exist?
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: 25805
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:41 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

It still seems to me that Kant "analyzed" a transcending font into existence, because without one there would be no actual foundation for his deontological morality. Which particular behaviors could be demonstrated categorically and imperatively to be the right ones without an omniscient and omnipotent frame of mind able to resolve any conflicting assessments among mere mortals?
I would remind you again, Kant’s system/model of Morality is not a deontological one.
It is a long story, Kant presented a very detailed argument on how categorically and imperatively – absolute moral laws – can be established. But in contrast to ‘theological absolutes’ such absolutes are only to be used as guides and not to be enforceable on people.
Kant’s morality is based on the System approach where the Categorical Imperatives are inputs and there is feedback and continual improvements process to achieve outputs as close as possible to the unachievable ideals. Herein is where all the conflicts [Moral Gaps] are resolved optimally.

Note a model of the System Approach in general;

Image


Prismatic567 wrote:According to Kant, the idea of God arose when the theists [out of psychological factors -mine] untie whatever empirical basis to the thought to conclude the existence of a God which in fact is an illusion.

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

First Kant isolated the idea of God as based on thoughts and reason only based on a detailed analysis of human activities and knowledge.
Since the idea of God is based on thoughts and reason, Kant relied to thoughts and reason to expose the illusory nature of the idea of God.
There is no need for empirical proofs to prove God do not exists. Like everything that is empirical, the onus is on the theists to prove God exists within empirical-rational reality.
Kant then did not have access to the knowledge of neurosciences, psychiatry and other advance knowledge. But now there is knowledge to support the idea and ‘experiences’ of God can arise from mental illness [temporal epilepsy], drugs, hallucinogens, brain damage, stress, etc. Such empirical basis that explain the existence of God is definitely more reliable than empty speculations that God exists.

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

Then what:

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

You convince yourself that there are no conflicting goods. Instead, if you embrace the right philosophy or the right God or the right political ideology or the right description of nature, then you can truly know what you are obligated to do.
This existential angst has nothing to do [directly] with ‘abortion’ or similar social, political, cultural, etc. issues.
This existential crisis is related to the cognitive dissonance that arise from one’s existential dilemma of inevitable mortality.
This cognitive dissonance is very subtle and subliminal that manifest deep in the brain are effect the human psyche in general.
It is such an ache of the psyche that is very difficult to point to, but nevertheless belief in a God will immediately resolve such a psychological angst/ache. Note many non-theist turned to drugs and opioids to drown those subtle aches. Others turn to various secular beliefs.

From my frame of mind, this frame of mind is just a way to avoid bringing God down out of the clouds of abstraction. Whereas in the context above, you either lie or you do not lie to the murderer. And God then either figures into your choice or He doesn't.
Technically, this is either true or it is not true. But it does not alter the fate of the woman if you tell the murderer where she is hiding. Instead, it seems to take the gut-wrenching agony of that choice up into the stratosphere of abstraction. All these technical points are batted back and forth...but the woman is either dead or she is not.

Whereas from my frame of mind, you will choose a behavior here predicated largely on the accumulation of experiences in your life that predispose you to go in one rather than another direction. It will all revolve around your own understanding of the situation. Who is this woman? Do you know her? Do you love her? Do you care if she is murdered? Has the murderer threatened to kill you if you don't talk? What are the actual perceived consequences of going one way or the other?

In other words, a profoundly problematic existential contraption.
In Kant’s moral system/model as I had explained above, one [in accordance to one’ state of mind] may lie or do not lie to the murderer and the system will automatically process the input and output to ensure corrective actions are taken [where necessary].
Say, in the above case, suppose the person did not lie to the murderer and thus some innocent is killed. The system will pick out an output of net-evil, i.e. killing has a greater degree of evilness than lying. From this the system will process the consequences of net-evil and propose corrective actions but without changing the absolute categorical imperatives.

OTOH, someone lied and save an innocent person. In this case, s/he did not comply with the absolute rule, 'lying is absolutely not permissible regardless'. Again in this case, the system will process the outputs and the person will have to rationalize his actions within the system. i.e. why the need for optimal good [the lesser evil is better than greater evil].

Why is killing another person is a greater evil than lying?
This rule will have to be deliberated in detail. It is a long story, I will not go into the details but the point is such a rule is not raised blindly from nowhere.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:59 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:An illusion [e.g. mirage] has effects on the mind but its referent do not exists as real.

The illusion of the referents is having affects (not "effects"). The "referents" as entities of their own, are not having affects. Thus the referents do not exist. Dreams exist. The characters within do not (except as dream figures).

The exact shallow childlike response I figured you would give.

So try again.
    Can you name something known to exist yet has no affect upon anything at all?

    Can you name anything that has affect upon something yet is known to not exist?
Note,
Affect and effect are different in meaning, though frequently confused. Affect is chiefly used as a verb and its main meaning is ‘to influence or make a difference to’, as in the following example sentences:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage ... -or-effect


You cannot compare an illusion and a dream, as a dream is not an illusion per se.
(Shallow thinking and trying be receptive here)

An illusion can affect the person psychologically, but an illusion [as generally understood] is never real within an empirical-rational reality.

Note Your claim,
"anything that can affects, exists" is false.

Besides an illusion, I also claimed,

God is an illusion that has effects on the mind but God do not exists within empirical-ration reality or [setting aside the term illusion],

The idea of God can affects on the mind but God do not exists within empirical-rational reality. The onus in on you to prove your claim.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Zero_Sum » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:14 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

    1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

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

Can any theists counter the above?


You know for somebody that doesn't claim to be a theist you sure sound like one with your usage of unrealistic hypocritical vain moral or ethical imperatives.

I'm an atheistic cynic of course but the only thing I dislike more than theists are atheistic humanists. You all claim to want to build a more better equitable humane world but fail miserably in all your endeavors. The atheistic cynic on the other hand is under no delusions by comparison. Also, atheistic humanists simply supplant God for government and it is their undying belief in government that becomes their God here on earth. The atheistic cynic not only rejects the divine right of God but also rejects the profanity of government as well. Ah, to be a minority of a minority!
The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.

I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.

-Thomas Hobbes-
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator And Cynic
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Global Commercial Financial Republican Empire

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:54 am

Zero Sum wrote:
I am an atheistic cynic of course but the only thing I dislike more than theists are atheistic humanists. You all claim to want to build a more
better equitable humane world but fail miserably in all your endeavors. The atheistic cynic on the other hand is under no delusions by comparison

I am not interested in making a better world as it is entirely beyond my ability. I therefore only focus on changing what I can which is
myself as I am a pragmatist rather than an idealist. Trying to change what I cannot change is just wasting mental and physical energy
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:04 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Theists claim their God is real to the extent of being empirically-rationally real, e.g. listening to their prayers and answering them. On this basis, theists must prove their God is real via an empirical-rational basis. But theists cannot do that except by FAITH which is not empirically based.

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated 'God is an impossibility' as proven [in thoughts via the highest possible rationality] is like a square-circle is an impossibility.
No rational person would doubt a square-circle is an impossibility because there is no deep psychological interest in such a point.


Yet you are assuming that intellectual integrity here revolves around the assumption that you have in fact proven your point. But your point is [from my frame of mind] just another intellectual contraption that in no way is able to grasp the totality of existence itself. And God is certainly one possible explanation for existence.

How on earth then have you demonstrated that in fact God is not the explanation?

Again: the staggering gap that almost certainly exists between what you construe "empirical rational reality" to be [here and now] on a cosmological scale and what any particular mere mortal must know to make that gap go away.


To the extent that you do not construe this is be just an "intellectual contraption" vis a vis the "rational empirical reality" one would need to know in order to encompass an ontological -- teleological? -- understanding of Existence, is the extent to which you fail to grasp my own point here.

In other words, not acknowledging this crucial gap does not make it go away.
It would appear you are insisting I prove my point on an empirically-rationally basis..
What I am trying to show you is the ‘idea of God’ is based purely on thoughts and [crude] reason ONLY, and never empirical. Otherwise theists would have resorted to empirical-rational to justify ‘God exists.’
Thus using the same basis, i.e. thoughts and higher reasoning, I have proven the idea of God is an impossibility, i.e. a non-starter. This is sufficient enough to stop theist raising the question of whether God exists or not on a empirically-rational basis.
I am not saying, theists cannot believe in a God, they can but they must understand this does not has an intellectual basis but rather such a belief is useful for only psychological reasons.




Prismatic567 wrote:The original basis of theism is psychological, i.e. a desperate drive to soothe the arising angst pulsating from an existential angst.


Okay, but what then is the original basis of human psychology? Again, we don't even know definitively if it is not just embedded autonomically in the immutable laws of matter that encompass the human brain.
Let alone where the debate regarding God/No God fits into it.
The origin of this human psychology is that existential crisis/malaise arising from the cognitive dissonance of inevitable mortality.

Prismatic567 wrote:This is real and has been recognized by Eastern spiritualities since thousands of years ago who has improved upon theistic methods [potentially malignant] to establish non-theistic methods which are benign.


Explain to me then how the Eastern philosophies are any less ignorant of whatever the explanation is for Existence rather than No Existence. For this Existence rather than some other.
And benign in what particular context regarding what particular behaviors that come into conflict over what particular assumptions regarding what particular God/No God.
How does this not come down to making an existential/political distinction between "one of us" [who are benign] and "one of them" [who are malignant]?
The theistic Abrahamic religions are malignantly evil as proven by the evil laden elements in their holy texts [especially Islam] and the evidence of a critical SOME Muslims who are evil prone who are inspired to commit terrible terrors, violence and evils in the name of God. The evidence for this is glaring.

OTOH, the non-theistic religions who realize the detrimental association of a God is benign in the sense there are no LEADING evil laden verses in their texts to inspire their believers to kill in the name of a God nor the founder.

Okay, I note, then demonstrate that to us. Why should we believe you? How would you go about -- empirically, materially, phenomenally -- confirming to us that your own set of assumptions reflect the optimal frame of mind here?


Prismatic567 wrote:I do not expect any one to believe me [100%] based on what I have posted.
What I have posted should be taken a clues and one need to do research on the subject.
However before one can proceed one must first understand the psychological compulsion that is driving one to theism. Using mindfulness one need to navigate to understand and reflect on what is really going on.


Again though:

Beyond the intellectual assumptions that you make in your argument/analysis, how have you demonstrated that rational men and women are obligated to believe you?

And if the psychology here is a compulsion then how would it not become the explanation for why folks seem compelled to embody it? Then it just comes down to the extent to which this compulsion is a manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

Either created or not created by a God, the God. A God, the God either compelled to create it as it is or not.
Note my argument in the OP and the subsequent detail explanation I have given.
So far there are no convincing counters to my argument in the OP.

As I had explained in most cases, a theist will feel a psychological comfort with his belief in a God and sense a terrible psychological threat when such a belief is questioned to the extent of killing those who critique their theistic beliefs. The evidence for this is so glaring.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users