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 Zero_Sum » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:06 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
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.


You merely supplant what is religious for what is political which is also glaringly hypocritical. You trade in the morality of God for the morality of the state which you worship as a God.
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: 223
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Global Commercial Financial Republican Empire

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:20 am

Zero_Sum wrote:You merely supplant what is religious for what is political which is also glaringly hypocritical. You trade in the morality of God for the morality of the state which you worship as a God.

Precisely.
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:30 am

iambiguous wrote:
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.

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

What I have proposed above is not exactly imagination but based on empirical possibilities.
Whatever benefits from Buddhism at the higher levels are supported by empirical evidences, it is just that these are confined to a small number of people. So the task is to deliver these benefits to a majority of people.

There are many research done on Buddhist monks who had done extensive meditations and other self-development programs; Here are a few links;
https://www.buddhistdoor.net/news/scien ... hist-monks
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944261/

There are also benefits from other non-theistic Eastern practices.

The above benefits are only reinforced in monks who has done many serious works and years of meditation.

The question is how to translate these benefits to the masses without the required slogging for it.

I am optimistic we can do it [with foolproof methods and voluntary] in the future given the trend of the present exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, e.g. in the neurosciences, genomics, and other advance fields of knowledge.
(just in case, this has nothing to do with the 'Frankenstein' method]
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 7:32 am

Zero_Sum wrote:You merely supplant what is religious for what is political which is also glaringly hypocritical. You trade in the morality of God for the morality of the state which you worship as a God.

You don't understand my points.
You are creating your own straw-men and shooting poison arrows on your own creations.
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 7:45 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
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
>500 years ago, it was impossible to change the views of the oppression of the Church, but yet there are people who dare to oppose the church with their own views and put their life at risk.
It the same for slavery, >200 ago, years slaves and many would not have any hope slavery will be banned by all countries in the world. To them it is 'IMPOSSIBLE' given the power held by the slave owners. But at present in 2017, all Nations has laws that ban slavery aside from many who will attempt to practice slavery illegally.

I understand humanity cannot expect theists to give up theism [despite God is an impossibility] because it is very critical psychological necessity. But the fact that there are non-theistic spiritual practices which can deal with the same psychological problem more efficiently without the related evil baggage, make it possible for theism and it's negative to disappear in the future [not now].

Discussion of such problems and possibility of solutions in a forum like this do not entail much mental [if one has done reasonable homework], physical energy and great risks.
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 surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:47 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
You will note that most of the scientific knowledge and technological realities realized at present were once speculated and encased
in a hypothesis in thoughts only and played around in the minds of people
This why Einstein stated Imagination is more important than knowledge

Knowledge is known but imagination is needed to discover what is unknown
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 Zero_Sum » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:55 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:You merely supplant what is religious for what is political which is also glaringly hypocritical. You trade in the morality of God for the morality of the state which you worship as a God.

You don't understand my points.
You are creating your own straw-men and shooting poison arrows on your own creations.



I understand your points all too well, more than you actually.
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: 223
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 8:00 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Discussion of such problems and possibility of solutions in a forum like this do not entail much mental [ if one has done reasonable homework ] or physical energy

Solutions still have come from the outside for they are not something I can bring about myself and so I leave that to others
I am also relatively detached from society so see myself as being on the edge of it which makes me less connected to it all
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 Arcturus Descending » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:36 pm

James,

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?


What experiments are you talking about? Proving or disproving that God is an impossibility?
If that is what you meant, how could there ever be an experiment for that?

I cannot speak for Prism.

Or have you both merely taken their word for it?


I have my own mind, James. I do not take any one's word for anything though there was a time when I would have before having come to ILP. ILP has ruined me insofar as God is concerned and that is not a bad thing. lol

Hundreds of people saw Jesus walk on the water.


Actually, if I am not mistaken, it was not hundreds of people. It was a few fisherman, disciples on the boat and a few on shore.

Millions prayed and got their wish.
So do you believe them?


I do not so much believe in the power of prayer. I think it is more like the power of suggestion. If we pray, it gives us the motivation to go after what we want since the prayer makes us believe that it will happen, if that made sense.

Being an agnostic and a skeptic, I am like a doubting Thomas. If I do not see it for myself I cannot believe it. I am like Jung. "You either know a thing or believe a thing. If you know a thing, you do not need to believe it." I may have said that incorrectly.
I do not see an omnipotent God - ergo there can be no walking on water for me.


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?
[/quote]

I actually think that those two questions are wonderful ones. I had planned to give them both more thought.
I may be wrong here and this is by no means an excuse but since I do not know a whole lot about science, any category of science, could I answer that question? My intuition tells me that that would be more of a scientific problem or issue.

I cannot quite grasp your meaning though in your second question....

yet is known to not exist?

That might be even a more difficult question to answer. Wouldn't that go back to "what is 'reality'"?
At first glance, I might say that since we cannot have knowledge of everything now, how can we know that something does not exist? We just have not discovered it insofar as the sciences go. So, for me, I can intuit that something might affect us though we have no idea what it might be...as of YET.

Insofar as things known not to exist, I might say fairies, goblins, witches, aliens from outer space, monsters which visit us in our nightmares, things of that sort, we pretty much figure that these things have no basis in reality but at the same time, since they exist in the minds of humans, do they have reality though not physical reality? They certainly do affect people.
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 iambiguous » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:50 pm

James S Saint wrote:
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.


Indeed, that is precisely where you always insist on taking these discussions/debates: inside your head.

The "bottom line".

You think this, you think that. And you think one thing rather than another because you have concocted this analysis of God which seems entirely predicated [tautologically] on the definition and the meaning that you assign the words in the analysis.

That way you can engage only in exchanges with those who assign a different, conflicting definition and meaning to the words used in their own intellectual contraptions.

Just as Christians will insist that 1] the Bible must be true because it is the word of God, and that 2] it must be the word of God because it is in the Bible, you intertwine the Real God and RM/AO in the assumption that they must be true because by definition you tell us that they are.

Okay, I challenge you [or anyone here] to demonstrate that they are in fact true as they pertain to that which is of most interest to me: How ought one to live?

And, given the nature of this thread, how the answer to this question intertwines the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side of it given the assumption we make about God or No God.

Morally, for example, or politically. Or, for others, "naturally".

We can do that on this thread, or take the exchange here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929&start=1200
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: 22701
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:11 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:What experiments are you talking about? Proving or disproving that God is an impossibility?
If that is what you meant, how could there ever be an experiment for that?

I cannot speak for Prism.

Since we were talking about believing what Science says ... "science experiments" .. concerning anything they have said that also you believe. And you can be assured that Prism hasn't either. You believe what they say for the exact same reason so many people believed in Jesus in his day - faith in the them. And Science cannot prove or disprove God.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Hundreds of people saw Jesus walk on the water.

Actually, if I am not mistaken, it was not hundreds of people. It was a few fisherman, disciples on the boat and a few on shore.

I heard that there was a couple of hundred on the shore, but either way you see my point, I'm sure.

Arcturus Descending wrote:
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?
I actually think that those two questions are wonderful ones. I had planned to give them both more thought.
I may be wrong here and this is by no means an excuse but since I do not know a whole lot about science, any category of science, could I answer that question? My intuition tells me that that would be more of a scientific problem or issue.

Why would you think they have anything to do with science or what scientists believe? Scientists have probably never heard those questions either. They are serious philosophical questions concerning the nature of existence, ontology. Scientists are technicians, not philosophers.

Arcturus Descending wrote: yet is known to not exist?

That might be even a more difficult question to answer. Wouldn't that go back to "what is 'reality'"?
At first glance, I might say that since we cannot have knowledge of everything now, how can we know that something does not exist? We just have not discovered it insofar as the sciences go. So, for me, I can intuit that something might affect us though we have no idea what it might be...as of YET.

Insofar as things known not to exist, I might say fairies, goblins, witches, aliens from outer space, monsters which visit us in our nightmares, things of that sort, we pretty much figure that these things have no basis in reality but at the same time, since they exist in the minds of humans, do they have reality though not physical reality? They certainly do affect people.

It is a hypothetical. It isn't asking what does or doesn't exist. It is asking if there is anything that you believe does not exist, yet you also believe has affect. And you gave the standard reflex answer: "dream figures".

Imaged or dreamt characters have no physical existence other than as dreamt images. The images in the mind exist as images. The dream exists, much as the story and film of the story exists, even though the characters are fiction.

No one has yet come up with anything that they believe exists and also has no affect upon anything. The reason is that inherently the idea of existing is synonymous with having affect (or potential affect).

Prism's proclamation that the association is "Without qualification nonsense" openly displays his shallow egocentric willingness to deny anything for his religion, even if it is to his own favor.
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Uccisore » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:15 pm

Snark wrote:I think his point is that if it can’t exist empirically, it can’t exist in spacetime. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist.



But he hasn't shown that a perfect sphere 'can't exist empirically'. It's just a coincidence of the particular physical laws that we have that there are no perfect spheres. For all you know mankind will invent a technology to create them next week. And if you want to say such a technology can never be invented, I'm going to need an argument for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13236
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:19 pm

Uccisore wrote:
Snark wrote:I think his point is that if it can’t exist empirically, it can’t exist in spacetime. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist.
But he hasn't shown that a perfect sphere 'can't exist empirically'. It's just a coincidence of the particular physical laws that we have that there are no perfect spheres. For all you know mankind will invent a technology to create them next week. And if you want to say such a technology can never be invented, I'm going to need an argument for that.

I could provide that argument, but such is actually irrelevant to his stance. God isn't a sphere or circle. Who cares if perfect circles can exist? It is just one more of the list of logic fallacies this guy spews.

The most relevant concern is that he doesn't understand the concept "perfect", thus his arguments are meaningless. And he refuses to learn because he wants to give the impression of already knowing everything (the preacher at the pulpit).
Last edited by James S Saint on Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:21 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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Uccisore » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:21 pm

I haven't really followed his posts in this thread after the first. If he another impossible-to-reason-with atheist, that's a shame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13236
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:23 pm

Uccisore wrote:I haven't really followed his posts in this thread after the first. If he another impossible-to-reason-with atheist, that's a shame.

He hasn't even gotten any atheist to agree with him yet. :icon-rolleyes:

And that's pretty bad on this site.
Last edited by James S Saint on Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:23 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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:23 pm

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

What on earth does this mean, James? How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others? 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.


Okay, I apologize for never having asked you this specifically, James.

Now, how about responding substantively to this part:

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.

Thus my beef with you is not that you rant foolishly, but that you refuse to being your technical argument [definitional logic] out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors.

How, for all practical putposes, is the Real God a factor here?

And isn't the whole point of my argment that, with respect to such things as religion and value judgments, the nature of dasein is "for all practical purposes" embodied in presumption and bias?

In other words, how are your own value judgments and reflections on religion not an embodiment of them?
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: 22701
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:36 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?
.
.
In other words, how are your own value judgments and reflections on religion not an embodiment of them?

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

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

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

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


But then according to Prism, your Situation is impossible and doesn't exist. :shock:
:-$
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:02 am

Uccisore wrote:
Snark wrote:I think his point is that if it can’t exist empirically, it can’t exist in spacetime. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist.



But he hasn't shown that a perfect sphere 'can't exist empirically'. It's just a coincidence of the particular physical laws that we have that there are no perfect spheres. For all you know mankind will invent a technology to create them next week. And if you want to say such a technology can never be invented, I'm going to need an argument for that.
You best bet is a scientific based technology.
Basically Science do not rely on absolute perfection.
According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.

You tell me at least in theory how can mankind prove an absolutely perfect circle, i.e. totally unconditional perfect circle. How?

Note I had argued a empirical perfect circle is possible when qualified [conditioned] to certain conditions, e.g. ordinary observations, physical measurements, etc. but all these so-claimed perfect circles are qualified, not unqualified.
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:23 am

James S Saint wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
Snark wrote:I think his point is that if it can’t exist empirically, it can’t exist in spacetime. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist.
But he hasn't shown that a perfect sphere 'can't exist empirically'. It's just a coincidence of the particular physical laws that we have that there are no perfect spheres. For all you know mankind will invent a technology to create them next week. And if you want to say such a technology can never be invented, I'm going to need an argument for that.

I could provide that argument, but such is actually irrelevant to his stance. God isn't a sphere or circle. Who cares if perfect circles can exist? It is just one more of the list of logic fallacies this guy spews.
As I had asked above, show me at least theoretically how can one verify an absolutely perfect circle empirically?

The most relevant concern is that he doesn't understand the concept "perfect", thus his arguments are meaningless. And he refuses to learn because he wants to give the impression of already knowing everything (the preacher at the pulpit).
Btw, you are not a "God" who can monopolise the meaning of the word 'perfect'. Who are you to dictate what 'perfect' must mean and that everyone on Earth must obey your meaning.

Note the meanings of Perfect [I have listed this many times], the ones relevant to the OP are in bold, with emphasis on absolute, complete;
http://googledictionary.freecollocation ... rd=perfect

    Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be
    - she strove to be the perfect wife
    - life certainly isn't perfect at the moment

    Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless
    - the equipment was in perfect condition

    Precisely accurate; exact
    - a perfect circle

    Highly suitable for someone or something; exactly right
    - Gary was perfect for her—ten years older and with his own career
    Denoting a way of binding books in which pages are glued to the spine rather than sewn together

    Thoroughly trained in or conversant with
    - she was perfect in French

    Absolute; complete (used for emphasis)
    - a perfect stranger
    - all that Joseph said made perfect sense to me

    (of a number) Equal to the sum of its positive divisors, e.g., the number 6, whose divisors (1, 2, 3) also add up to 6

    (of a tense) Denoting a completed action or a state or habitual action that began in the past. The perfect tense is formed in English with have or has and the past participle, as in they have eaten and they have been eating (since dawn) (present perfect), they had eaten (past perfect), and they will have eaten (future perfect)

    (of a flower) Having both stamens and carpels present and functional

    Denoting the stage or state of a fungus in which the sexually produced spores are formed

    (of an insect) Fully adult and (typically) winged

Obviously dictionary meanings are general, but note how perfect is used in the theological and philosophical settings;

'Perfect' is used in a theistic context like;

Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desc ... tological/


My meaning is 'perfect' as used in this OP is based on the above context.

My use of a perfect circle is to illustrate how theists rhetorical stretched [due to psychological compulsion] from the empirical, the empirical possible, to the transcendental illusion which is an impossibility.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:34 am

James S Saint wrote:
Uccisore wrote:I haven't really followed his posts in this thread after the first. If he another impossible-to-reason-with atheist, that's a shame.

He hasn't even gotten any atheist to agree with him yet. :icon-rolleyes:
And that's pretty bad on this site.

Consensus is obviously necessary but most thesis and theories do not gain consensus immediately.
What is critical is do you have any convincing counters to my argument in the OP?

It is not likely I will get consensus perhaps none at all in such a forum with very limited room to explain my argument in more details to convince anyone. I do not expect any consensus via faith, but the fact is for anyone to understand my arguments fully, thoroughly and convincingly, they will have to spent years on Kant, Buddhism, the neurosciences, and others.

My main purpose for the OP is at most to gather as many counters as possible and knock them off as they come.
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:06 am

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had asked above, show me at least theoretically how can one verify an absolutely perfect circle empirically?

Nothing can be proven to those who don't even understand the words.

Prismatic567 wrote:
The most relevant concern is that he doesn't understand the concept "perfect", thus his arguments are meaningless. And he refuses to learn because he wants to give the impression of already knowing everything (the preacher at the pulpit).
Btw, you are not a "God" who can monopolise the meaning of the word 'perfect'. Who are you to dictate what 'perfect' must mean and that everyone on Earth must obey your meaning.

Hahaha. :lol: :lol:
Last refuge; ... "You're not God. I don't have to listen to you!"
:lol: :lol:

Prismatic567 wrote:Note the meanings of Perfect [I have listed this many times], the ones relevant to the OP are in bold, with emphasis on absolute, complete;
http://googledictionary.freecollocation ... rd=perfect

No. You listed types .. and screwed that up too. Try to learn the difference.
I provided a definition for you. You just refuse to learn anything.

Prismatic567 wrote:Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be
Which are the required and desired elements for this case?

Prismatic567 wrote:Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless
What is the flawless condition in this case?

Prismatic567 wrote:Precisely accurate; exact
Accurate concerning what in this case?

Prismatic567 wrote:Highly suitable for someone or something; exactly right
Suitable for what purpose in this case?

You still haven't defined what "perfect" actually means, especially in this case. Dictionaries don't always tell.

And just to let you know once more:
      The concept of "Perfect" is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal.

The dictionaries have concurred. They were just a little less definitive. But you still have to state what standard or ideal God is to match in order to be "absolutely perfect".

Prismatic567 wrote:
Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desc ... tological/

Haha. As your reference, you quote someone who is "poorly understood" and merely used the word once. Haha =D>
:lol:

Prismatic567 wrote:What is critical is do you have any convincing counters to my argument in the OP?

You have been provided with a dozen "counters". You choosing to ignore what every person here has been telling you and merely repeating your errors is a sign of something seriously wrong with you, not merely your arguments. If this had been a masters or doctoral thesis, you would have been kicked out long ago. You seriously need to measure up to the bar and preach opinion a lot less. Try actually learning of your mistakes from others ... preferably BEFORE you shoot off your mouth with nonsense.

Prismatic567 wrote:My main purpose for the OP is at most to gather as many counters as possible and knock them off as they come.

Yet you have failed to "knock down" a single one of the refutations.
Your argument is completely useless.

    Learn a little logic. And learn when you have made a mistake.
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:38 am

James S Saint wrote:And just to let you know once more:
      The concept of "Perfect" is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal.

The dictionaries have concurred. They were just a little less definitive. But you still have to state what standard or ideal God is to match in order to be "absolutely perfect".
Your meaning of 'Perfect' has a semblance to the dictionary's meaning, i.e.

Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be
- she strove to be the perfect wife
- life certainly isn't perfect at the moment

Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless
- the equipment was in perfect condition

Precisely accurate; exact
- a perfect circle

but why do you ignore the additional meaning 'absolute, complete.' ?

In any case your idea of 'perfect' is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, i.e.
your "The concept of "Perfect" is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal." is not tenable because you cannot get a 100% exact match within empirical elements.
In addition, the term 'ideal' imply an empirical-rational impossibility.

Now when you apply your term 'perfection' to an absolutely perfect God, it is already an impossibility to start with.

The quality of God as I am claiming is God has an overall quality quality of absolute perfection. As I have shown your term 'perfection' is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

On top of the quality of absolute perfection, God is attributed as being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience and whatever 'omni' that a theist assign to his God. Another question how are you to prove these 'omni' traits of God within an empirical-rational reality?

Point is whatever traits and qualities are assigned to God, it cannot be lower than being in an absolutely perfect state which I have shown is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

As I had asked many times, what other basis of reality [other than on moral grounds, hallucinatory, illusory, psychiatric, theological faith,] can you show me that God is a possibility as real?

When will you ever learn?
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:44 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desc ... tological/


James S Saint wrote:Haha. As your reference, you quote someone who is "poorly understood" and merely used the word once. Haha =D>
:lol:


How can you be SO stupid?
Poorly understood by others do not mean poorly argued by Descartes.
Many of QM theories are poorly understood by many Physicists and non-Physicists.

merely used the word once

You cannot be that ignorant, the term 'perfect' is commonly attributed directly and indirectly to God within the theistic community. Just do a google for 'perfect God'.
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:50 am

Prismatic567 wrote: why do you ignore the additional meaning 'absolute, complete.' ?

Because if you had a lick of sense, you could see that they don't add anything to it, as many have repeatedly told you.


Prismatic567 wrote:In any case your idea of 'perfect' is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, i.e.
your "The concept of "Perfect" is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal." is not tenable because you cannot get a 100% exact match within empirical elements.

Bullshit, but you STILL haven't specified the standard or ideal.

Prismatic567 wrote:In addition, the term 'ideal' imply an empirical-rational impossibility.

Only to the naive such as yourself. I don't have a problem with it, nor most scientists.

Prismatic567 wrote:Now when you apply your term 'perfection' to an absolutely perfect God, it is already an impossibility to start with.

Just a repeat of your logic fallacies ... geeezzz.


Perfection is a RELATIVE TERM. You have to relate it to some ideal for it to have meaning.

Saying "absolute meaningless" doesn't really help your case.
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:56 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: why do you ignore the additional meaning 'absolute, complete.' ?

Because if you had a lick of sense, you could see that they don't add anything to it, as many have repeatedly told you.


Prismatic567 wrote:In any case your idea of 'perfect' is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, i.e.
your "The concept of "Perfect" is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal." is not tenable because you cannot get a 100% exact match within empirical elements.

Bullshit, but you STILL haven't specified the standard or ideal.

Prismatic567 wrote:In addition, the term 'ideal' imply an empirical-rational impossibility.

Only to the naive such as yourself. I don't have a problem with it, nor most scientists.

Prismatic567 wrote:Now when you apply your term 'perfection' to an absolutely perfect God, it is already an impossibility to start with.

Just a repeat of your logic fallacies ... geeezzz.


Perfection is a RELATIVE TERM. You have to relate it to some ideal for it to have meaning.

Saying "absolute meaningless" doesn't really help your case.
I agree perfection is related to something, it need not be an ideal to start with.

Thus when I used the term 'perfection' is imply perfection in relation to X [whatever that is].

I had claimed a qualified 'perfection' within empirical rational reality is a possibility. e.g. if someone state 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples that is a 'qualified' perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality.

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

Now when you attempt to have perfect match to an ideal [which itself is a perfection] then you have double the problem, i.e.

An ideal perfection in relation of an ideal [perfect] X.

In above cases, those sort of perfection presented are impossibilities in 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

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users