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 Arcturus Descending » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:24 pm

James S Saint wrote:
God ɡäd/
noun
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"


I know that your response was in response to my post ~~ Wouldn't the atheist...~~ but that tells me NOTHING, James. :oops: I was raised a Catholic.
This is why I think that being an agnostic is a far better feast than nibbling on a belief or wearing *old hats*. :x
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: 14918
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:53 pm

phyllo wrote:
Huh? I'm just asking you to define the meaning "rational" if someone were to ask you whether the OP is a rational argument.

I'm asking you to dissolve the mud such that all of us might be more in sync in evaluating how reasonable or unreasonable the argument is.
I already presented what I see as the flaws/errors in Prismatic's syllogism.

I will recap briefly:

He insists that theists demand that God be perfect. - This seems clearly false.


Until one is able to demonstrate that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist -- and that it is therefore entirely rational to state this -- how would we go about determining/demonstrating that He is perfect?

Whether what he argues is true or what you argue is false is still just a conflict between what you both believe "in your head" is true/false, based it seems [in the absence of an extant empirical God], on the manner in which you define the meaning of the words you use in the arguments themselves.

And isn't that "arbitrary" in the absence of a God able to close the gap here between your words and our world once and for all?

phyllo wrote: He presents a logic argument which is not based on any observed evidence. - This means that the conclusion does not necessarily reflect reality. The stuff that Feynman said about physics theories applies to this argument.


And how is your assessment that his logic is flawed based on any observed evidence? Evidence that does in fact establish the most rational [or the only rational] manner in which to construe God?

And then we'll have James interject here with his "definitional logic" pertaining to the Real God. The Real Christian God?

Alas, when you are reduced to this sort of "retort", my respect for your intelligence does take a dent or two. After all, making me the argument doesn't make my points go away.


phyllo wrote: We keep going round and round because you don't have a reasonable concept of rationality. If you did, then we could move forward and make some sort of progress.


Yes, but it is one thing to discuss a "reasonable concept of rationality" in a world of words, and another thing altogether to discuss it in a world where the existence of a God, the God has been established such that we can compare the arguments about God with the real thing.

phyllo wrote: I have always been willing to commit myself to a definition of rationality based on observed evidence, logic and proven methods of reasoning.


Okay, we live in a world awash in natural disasters -- great floods, earthquakes, super volcanoes, tornadoes, devastating droughts, viruses, epidemics, crashing asteroids, gamma ray bursts, CMEs, extinction events.

Now, if someone were to argue that "God is loving, just and merciful", based on the your own "observed evidence, logic and proven methods of reasoning" would you say that this is a rational conclusion?

phyllo wrote: Except you can't do that. You couldn't do it for the "teaching Boris" scenario and you certainly can't do in any thread where the word 'god' comes up.


Note to others:

Go to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193464

Note that I had continued my exchange with Phyllo regarding Peggy and Boris. He is the one who abandoned it.
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: 22416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:46 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:But there are the laws of physics, mathematical calculations, the logical rules of language etc.. They are at our disposal and seem able to demonstrate any number of facts embedded in the either/or world that we live and interact with.

I see. So you worship physicists as your priests. And thus anyone agreeing with modern physics is a "rational man or woman".


I don't worship anyone. I merely note the extraordinary technological and engineering accomplishments that we take for granted here and now; accomplishments that would have been virtually unthinkable back when, say, Christ is alleged to have been born.

Physicists must know something rather objective about the world we live in, right?

And while you dispute many aspects of "modern physics" [re RM/AO and the Real God], you have not yet been able to demonstrate this much beyond your tiny presence here on the internet. In other words, when will you deconstruct the conspiracy they have mounted against you, such that you will begin to pop up on, say, Nova or the Science Channel?

Or [as no doubt you imagine] when will they come to you?

Instead...

iambiguous wrote:But few folks are quite like you, James. You have managed to construct this gigantic intellectual contraption "in your head" that, through "definitional logic" has resulted in this equally gigantic "theory of everything" that somehow "in your head" manages to intertwine definitional logic with RM/AO with the Real God with...what exactly?

James S Saint wrote: ... with Physics.


Again, until you are actually able to reconfigure your premises/assumptions/definitional logic into a demonstrable model of the universe that we live in, I suspect you will remain but a tiny presence on the internet.

And that's before we get to the manner in which you integrate your TOE regarding the either/or world into the world of is/ought.

iambiguous wrote:In particular as it relates to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

James S Saint wrote: ... with Psychology.


Well, my own argument here does revolve around psychology. Remember this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


And while this pertains to the "psychology of objectivism" in the is/ought world, it is probably true in turn regarding physicists assessments of the either/or world. Especially regarding...

1] the world of the very, very small
2] the world of the very, very large
3] the world that brings them both together seamlessly so as to explain Existence itself

And the parts we call "human reality".

James S Saint wrote: You should think it interesting that neither modern physicists, psychologists, nor me have your special dilemma, yet they are your reference for being "rational".


On the contrary, my "reference for being rational" is no less an existential contraption than I suspect that yours is. It's just that with regard to the either/or world, it seems that "modern physics" has established an astounding accumulation of seeming facts about the world we live in.

My dilemma on the other hand pertains far more to the is/ought world. And, really, what do physicists [modern or otherwise] have to tell us definitively [even today] about that?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:20 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote: Iambiguous wrote,


Huh? I'm just asking you to define the meaning "rational" if someone were to ask you whether the OP is a rational argument.


Perhaps one could ALSO define rational as having the wherewithal to Show Just Cause for such an argument?


Until, pertaining to God, an understanding of rational is able to seamlessly integrate words and worlds -- definitions and meaning with hard empirical fact/evidence -- showing just cause remains as elusive [or even illusory] as ever.

That's the wherewithal that piques my own interest. If such an integrated argument does manage to convince me, then my dilemma is dissolved. I would no longer believe in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for all eternity in oblivion.

Polemics aside, I'm rooting for Phyllo and James here!!

And yet I recognize that even if I were to be convinced by any particular argument, there may well be an even better one out there --- one that [once again] yanks God out from under me.

I will die. Then I will know. Or "I" will never know anything ever again.

Arcturus Descending wrote: Considering the fact that there would at least appear to be a Universe lol - arguing for a God NOT being a possibility would seem to be irrational - at least to me.


That's the profoundest mystery of all, of course. Why something instead of nothing? Why this something and not another? And given that something certainly seems to exist, God is clearly one explanation for it. But then we are back to the child asking, "Well, who created God?"

Do the theists here among us really have anything approaching a definitive answer for her?

Arcturus Descending wrote: Wouldn't the atheist at the very least first have to define what he/she means by God and what others mean by God?
Hmmm... :-k


Theists, atheists, deists, agnostics etc., all seem to be in the same boat here.

How can they not acknowledge the gap between what they think they know about all of this here and now and all that would need to be known in order to finally encompass/grasp Existence and Human Reality once and for all.

That's why my own argument here tends toward the conjecture that God is more likely to be a manifestation of human psychology: the need for comfort and consolation given the "brute facticity" of what may well be an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for each of us one by one in oblivion.
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: 22416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:51 pm

iambiguous wrote:when will you deconstruct the conspiracy they have mounted against you, such that you will begin to pop up on, say, Nova or the Science Channel?

I have to ask: Exactly who is "they"?? :-?

iambiguous wrote:Again, until you are actually able to reconfigure your premises/assumptions/definitional logic into a demonstrable model of the universe that we live in, I suspect you will remain but a tiny presence on the internet.

Not that such is the grand concern you seem to think that it is, but in fact, I have demonstrated. But as it as been pointed out, there is nothing that can be demonstrated to everyone, especially those who can't even find their way out of their self-imposed mental dilemma. Most of the things that you believe of science have only been demonstrated to a very few. And a great deal of what is demonstrated, is never revealed to you.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25616
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:15 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Wouldn't the atheist at the very least first have to define what he/she means by God and what others mean by God?
Hmmm... :-k
God in this case is ultimately the ontological God, i.e.
a being than which no greater can be 'conceived' - St. Anselm.
For any quality attributed to any god, the ontological god is always greater.

I have stated the natural evolving trend is towards an ontological God, improving from polytheism and animism. This is why the majority of theists [>5 billion] at present believe in a monotheistic ontological god.


But I would like to know the REAL one. ..not the greater one...but the one which is hidden.
Do you *see* THAT?
Same here, I would like to know the REAL one as well, but where is the evidence or even a thesis for its possibility?
Ever since the idea of God emerged into human consciousness from animism, polytheism to monotheism, no evidence has been produced to prove a REAL god exists. Why?

It is because it is so obvious that theists are unable prove God exists as REAL that they push the argument to one that is based on reason and subsequently more 'sophisticated' reason [cosmological argument, etc. ] culminating in an ontological God which is an impossibility.

A human-liked aliens in a planet billions of light years away is an empirical possibility, albeit very very low possibility. But God which must ultimately be an absolute perfect God is not even empirically possible, it is an absolute impossibility [as proven].

The idea of a God emerged out of crude primal reason as compelled by an inherent existential crisis and it is with finer reason itself that the God-idea is destroyed as an impossibility to be empirically real.

The alternative argument I have provided why people believe in a God is due and driven by subliminal psychological factors, e.g. an existential crisis, angst, and the likes is a more tenable and manageable thing. This is not a speculation but the various Eastern spiritualities has already instituted and been practicing such a non-theistic ideology since thousands of years ago.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:29 am

iambiguous wrote:Until one is able to demonstrate that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist -- and that it is therefore entirely rational to state this -- how would we go about determining/demonstrating that He is perfect?
The above presumed God exists somewhere and God is real.

The idea of God exists as real has always been merely a hypothesis.
Since the idea of God emerged into human consciousness [from animism, polytheism to monotheism], there has been no proofs that God is real.

It is so obvious that theists are unable prove God exists as REAL that they push the argument to one that is based on reason and subsequently more 'sophisticated' reason [cosmological argument, etc. ] culminating in an ontological God - an absolutely perfect God - which is an impossibility.

... how would we go about determining/demonstrating that He is perfect?

It is not rational to state the above because the hypothesis [God exists as real and ontologically] is not tenable at all in the first place. As such the question of the idea of a God as perfect [absolutely] is a non-starter and moot.
Therefore we do not have to ensure God exists as real [empirically] so that we can assess whether God is perfect or not.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Meno_ » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:52 am

Again, being a die hard Theist , another, different way of presenting an opinion will be attempted.

What god is, pertains to cognitive constructions of ideas formed by ritual, based on myth or Reversely, ritual based myth.

There is substance to ritual and myth, and they pertain to both, rational and so called irrational” content. Now reel foreward to modernism and beyond. The superconscious is developing out of superconscious compilation of memory.

It is beyond discussion, that given a survivable time for humanity, super memory-consciousness will eclipse and overcome human memory by many many fold of power.

This will become a repository, not of matter, since by that time all matter may be reducible to pure energy, based on a temporal universal imminence, which would preclude questions about the creation of matter mute and irrelevant to the underlying question of inquiring of what ‘existence is comprised of’. Therefore nothing ever is created or destroyed.


If aGod can be understood as a quantum memory whose set comprises another, then another, approaching small possible sets, then this super repository can curve space time and return to the beginning, which instantly becomes imminently analogous, so near identical with this curve backward, that the perfect ontological perimeter is created, for ever.

Now if this is conceivable, then the beginning, where the word describes the beginning of creation, of belief, may have transferred to primitive man by a conduit, which can only be understood, by higher levels of revelation, then was available back then, which really is still only now, except we understand it as a transcendence.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:09 am

Meno_ wrote:...
Now if this is conceivable, then the beginning, where the word describes the beginning of creation, of belief, may have transferred to primitive man by a conduit, which can only be understood, by higher levels of revelation, then was available back then, which really is still only now, except we understand it as a transcendence.
As per Hume there cannot be a conduit from OUGHT to IS.
Your end result is transcendental but it is not related to any empirical possibility, thus what is transcendentally possible in your case is never empirically possible.

There is substance to ritual and myth, ....

Yes, there is substance to rituals and myths. Note for example the Myth of the Buddha Story, the substance is collectively the old man, the sick man, the corpse [mortality] which are all existential crisis materials and the monk representing a non-theistic solution to soothe the related existential angst.

The above existential crisis is generic to all human beings but unfortunately theists were compelled ignorantly & outwardly toward theism [God is an impossibility] and thus theism's baggage of negatives and evils.

To resolves the terrible evils and violence by SOME theists we need to trace the ultimate root causes, i.e. the psychological existential crisis and deal with it effectively.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Meno_ » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:34 pm

By conduit, I was not referring to a deferral against Hume’s ideas, and there are some in Philosophy who do not poin to the problem caused by what is\or should be. The conduit is not iffy like that, it is, rather, the underlying forces generated by physics and metaphysics.

The mathematical basis of physics , when it predisposes metaphysics, which is grappling with the empirical logic’s incompleteness, in terms of a reductive, or referential logical system, is not yet clarified do to many other variables which have not yet been referred to a satisfactory understanding which can unite all the partial functional understanding of what is at stake.

Empirical specialists struggle for pre eminently to position themselves into more advantages and superior positions, and use hypothetical paradigmns to beat each other to those positions.

What a mistake that is remains to be seen, and to categorize modern partial functions as if they were simply attachable disassociated partial circuitry is using mistaken hypothesis.

It is not to say that computer analogies of that high caliber are never to be discovered in the future, but until then , a viable truth machine does not yet exist to give an ultimate verdict on the infallibility of inferential, rather then referential logic.

So on those grounds, I may sustain my opinion, which incidentally gives an analogous interpretation of ideas purporting a regression into myth , for these purposes.

In other words, it seems to me, You are advocating a total uselessness of metaphysical considerations so that to buttress up a total and absolute rationale for science.

What I am saying is, even if, science can get there, to that place where a total vindication is possible, and it point point to a final and successful impartiality between various factions of knowledge, even then, You may be at a disadvantage to prioritize one from the other, vis. Physics, over metaphysics. The reason for that, is, at that point causation will break down, and all temporilization as well.

But the question then, as is now should be posed, at what point will science loose the courage to ask, if, the end point to reach such an effort will result in a God filled eternity, or the coming of the reign of the Beast.

As some of the talk of demonology in various forums here seems to put a damper on discussion of other than a strictly archaic explanations, consensus among the well versed Gnostics seem to go the other way, and go at least to the point Nietzche arrived- beyond the problem.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:53 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:when will you deconstruct the conspiracy they have mounted against you, such that you will begin to pop up on, say, Nova or the Science Channel?

I have to ask: Exactly who is "they"?? :-?


Well, for starters, those physicists you think that I worship as priests.

iambiguous wrote:Again, until you are actually able to reconfigure your premises/assumptions/definitional logic into a demonstrable model of the universe that we live in, I suspect you will remain but a tiny presence on the internet.

James S Saint wrote: Not that such is the grand concern you seem to think that it is, but in fact, I have demonstrated. But as it as been pointed out, there is nothing that can be demonstrated to everyone, especially those who can't even find their way out of their self-imposed mental dilemma. Most of the things that you believe of science have only been demonstrated to a very few. And a great deal of what is demonstrated, is never revealed to you.


Again, this is what I call a classic "general description" argument. The argument consist entirely of words defending other words. The extent to which they are applicable to the world we live in is never, ever addressed until someone is willing to go up into the stratosphere with you and duel over definitions.

No, somehow or other you are going to have to come up with a way in which to bring RM/AO and the Real God onto a platform in which those who own and operate science today have no choice but to either falsify it or to embrace it in turn.

Until then [as with me and dasein] you will flail away at a teeny, tiny audience of folks with virtually no chance that your own "intellectual contraption" sees the light of day. To a broader audience as it were.
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: 22416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:23 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Until one is able to demonstrate that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist -- and that it is therefore entirely rational to state this -- how would we go about determining/demonstrating that He is perfect?
The above presumed God exists somewhere and God is real.

The idea of God exists as real has always been merely a hypothesis.

Since the idea of God emerged into human consciousness [from animism, polytheism to monotheism], there has been no proofs that God is real.


My whole argument though is that, while it is always fascinating to speculate about these things, the existence of God would seem to fall into that yawning gap between what any particular individuals think they know [or profess to believe] about God, and all that would need to be known in order to know this.

In the interim, what we are doing here then is grappling with the gap between what folks think they know [or profess to believe] about the existence of God, and that which they are actually able to demonstrate [empirically] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Otherwise it all devolves [re James and his ilk] into dueling definitions and deductions.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is so obvious that theists are unable prove God exists as REAL that they push the argument to one that is based on reason and subsequently more 'sophisticated' reason [cosmological argument, etc. ] culminating in an ontological God - an absolutely perfect God - which is an impossibility.


The tricky thing here though is that there may well be theists out there who have in fact proven that God is real. But what counts [here] is that this person's proof becomes known to us.

One thing would seem certain though. If such a person is out there, he or she has chosen to keep this proof to him or herself? Why? Because if such proof ever did get out [on youtube or facebook for example] that's all any of us would be talking about 24/7.

Also, there may be billions of other planets out there in our staggeringly vast universe with civilizations advanced enough to grapple with the very ontological/teleological explanation for Existence itself. It seems foolish then to confine the discussion merely to Earth.

And that's before we get to God [perfect or not] and the multiverse.
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: 22416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:08 am

iambiguous wrote:The tricky thing here though is that there may well be theists out there who have in fact proven that God is real. But what counts [here] is that this person's proof becomes known to us.

One thing would seem certain though. If such a person is out there, he or she has chosen to keep this proof to him or herself? Why? Because if such proof ever did get out [on youtube or facebook for example] that's all any of us would be talking about 24/7.
These are wishful thinking and speculations. What counts is; bring the evidence or empirical-rational arguments, else no point speculating at all.

Also, there may be billions of other planets out there in our staggeringly vast universe with civilizations advanced enough to grapple with the very ontological/teleological explanation for Existence itself. It seems foolish then to confine the discussion merely to Earth.

And that's before we get to God [perfect or not] and the multiverse.
God created the Universe with Earth therein.
Therefore the God that is spoken of anywhere in the Universe must be the same God all its believers speak of. Thus a discussion of God within Earth is sufficient to understand the idea of God and to confirm God exists is so easy, just bring the direct evidence.

If you are referring to human-liked higher intelligence existing somewhere in the Universe. Human-liked is empirical and empirically possible, but we know the possibility of such aliens existing is negligible to likely Zero. Thus your proposition related to this has near-zero credibility at present.

Beside why must an all-powerful God hide itself that only 100x time more intelligent being can only know it? It is so simple, just bring the direct evidence.

I have proposed the basis for the emergence of the idea of God is due to psychological factors. It would more easier and viable to research from the psychological perspectives within human [readily available for research] rather than waiting for direct evidence of God and finding evidence of human-liked aliens some billion of light years away. This is crazy.

Besides the non-theistic spiritualities, e.g. from Eastern spiritualities had already embarked on non-theistic approaches to resolve the human issues theistic doctrines are trying to tackle.

In addition, in resolving the same inherent existential crisis, the theistic path is full of 'potholes' of negatives, terrible terrors, evil & violence arising from its evil laden elements in their holy texts.

OTOH, non-theistic Eastern spiritualities like Buddhism are fully pacifist without elements leading and inspiring believers to commit terrible evils and violence.

Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:28 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:The tricky thing here though is that there may well be theists out there who have in fact proven that God is real. But what counts [here] is that this person's proof becomes known to us.

One thing would seem certain though. If such a person is out there, he or she has chosen to keep this proof to him or herself? Why? Because if such proof ever did get out [on youtube or facebook for example] that's all any of us would be talking about 24/7.
These are wishful thinking and speculations. What counts is; bring the evidence or empirical-rational arguments, else no point speculating at all.


Probably.

But more to the point [mine] the existence of God is a constellation of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge [embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts], that have, here and now, there and then, coagulated in minds such that we believed/believe what we did/do about it.

But what is that next to all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that in fact God does or does not exist.

Just because we are not shown the evidence does not mean that the evidence is not there. Thus we are all "stuck" until it can in fact be demonstrated definitively one way or the other.

Whatever that means.

At best, the No God folks can [in my view] reasonably argue it is incumbent upon the God folks to demonstrate that what they claim does in fact exist does in fact exist. Either that or fall back on faith.

Also, there may be billions of other planets out there in our staggeringly vast universe with civilizations advanced enough to grapple with the very ontological/teleological explanation for Existence itself. It seems foolish then to confine the discussion merely to Earth.

And that's before we get to God [perfect or not] and the multiverse.


Prismatic567 wrote: God created the Universe with Earth therein.
Therefore the God that is spoken of anywhere in the Universe must be the same God all its believers speak of. Thus a discussion of God within Earth is sufficient to understand the idea of God and to confirm God exists is so easy, just bring the direct evidence.


And yet there may well be civilizations on other worlds that conceive of God in ways that have never even occurred to folks here on earth. They may be so much more advanced than we are that their thinking about God may in turn be all that much more sophisticated.

Instead, when I think of God and the universe, the thing that most intrigues me is why He deemed it necessary to make it so staggeringly vast. The more we learn about it the more mind-boggling it gets. Was God behind the laws of nature or must God be in sync with them?

Prismatic567 wrote: If you are referring to human-liked higher intelligence existing somewhere in the Universe. Human-liked is empirical and empirically possible, but we know the possibility of such aliens existing is negligible to likely Zero. Thus your proposition related to this has near-zero credibility at present.


No, "we" don't know this. You think that you do. But any number of folks who spend their lives thinking about it [astrophysicists for example] speculate that there are almost certainly billions upon billions of planets "out there". Thus their proposition would seem to carry considerably more weight than yours. They would ask you what empirical evidence do you have to support your claim? And then they would show you theirs: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/the-search- ... ife-signs/

Prismatic567 wrote: Beside why must an all-powerful God hide itself that only 100x time more intelligent being can only know it? It is so simple, just bring the direct evidence.


Again, I am generally in agreement with you here. I just have no illusion that I am any more capable of providing direct evidence for a No God universe. Just that those who do believe this seem more obligated to provide the evidence. Especially given the fact that immortality, salvation and divine justice itself are at stake re the looming shadow that is the abyss.

And Eastern religious narratives are no less confronted with this. There is how we choose to behave on this side of the grave, and what our fate is to be on the other side of it. And how the two are intertwined. Either Western or Eastern religionists address this point or they don't.

But that is still basically my own interest in God and religion: How ought one to live?

It's just that, with God, the speculation doesn't end at the grave.

Prismatic567 wrote: Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.


On the contrary, in the absence of God, rationality quickly devolves into any number of conflicting "humanistic" and "nihilistic" philosophies [and political agendas]. And there is plenty of "negative and evil" baggage about when these titanic entities clash. For example, liberal vs. conservative, capitalist vs. socialist, I vs. we vs. 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: 22416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:01 am

iambiguous wrote:Just because we are not shown the evidence does not mean that the evidence is not there. Thus we are all "stuck" until it can in fact be demonstrated definitively one way or the other.
Whatever that means.
It depends on what type of evidence we are expecting.
If we are expecting evidence of empirical-based things, then we cannot discount its possibility. I can agree there is a possibility of a tea-pot [empirically possible] flying somewhere out there in space billion of light years away. But this probability would be very low.

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


Based on higher critical philosophical reasoning we can conclude God is an impossibility, thus is no question of evidence for God in the first place.

And yet there may well be civilizations on other worlds that conceive of God in ways that have never even occurred to folks here on earth. They may be so much more advanced than we are that their thinking about God may in turn be all that much more sophisticated.
No matter where the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic will apply.
Other civilization and their entities will share the same Universe and the ultimate absolutely perfect has to be same in substance regardless of how its forms are interpreted.

Instead, when I think of God and the universe, the thing that most intrigues me is why He deemed it necessary to make it so staggeringly vast. The more we learn about it the more mind-boggling it gets. Was God behind the laws of nature or must God be in sync with them?
Why don't you turn around [like Copernicus] to human_ness and your own self [instead of out there] to understand why humans are thinking of God in the way they do. This way is more manageable than the infinite Universe which in one sense could be an illusion [nothingness in the Buddhist Way].

Prismatic567 wrote: If you are referring to human-liked higher intelligence existing somewhere in the Universe. Human-liked is empirical and empirically possible, but we know the possibility of such aliens existing is negligible to likely Zero. Thus your proposition related to this has near-zero credibility at present.


No, "we" don't know this. You think that you do. But any number of folks who spend their lives thinking about it [astrophysicists for example] speculate that there are almost certainly billions upon billions of planets "out there". Thus their proposition would seem to carry considerably more weight than yours. They would ask you what empirical evidence do you have to support your claim? And then they would show you theirs: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/the-search- ... ife-signs/
Note I agreed human-liked aliens [with empirical elements] are empirically possible.

Prismatic567 wrote: Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.

On the contrary, in the absence of God, rationality quickly devolves into any number of conflicting "humanistic" and "nihilistic" philosophies [and political agendas]. And there is plenty of "negative and evil" baggage about when these titanic entities clash. For example, liberal vs. conservative, capitalist vs. socialist, I vs. we vs. them.
I agree but it is only in the present state that the secular is in quite a mess, but its knowledge base is expanding exponentially.
I am looking into the future with optimism as we have already mapped the full human genome and moving on to map the brain's circuits plus knowledge is advancing in so many other fields.
With more sophisticated knowledge we will be able to dig deep to understand the human brain in relation to human existences and its problem. This is the basis for my point;

"Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage."
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:38 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?


That is easy. You have fabricated an either/or conceptual utopia where by every iota of matter can be classified into one or the other of your prescribed categories. I'm pretty sure that falls into one or another logic fallacies. And OH, gosh I did it too. So let's look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The false dilemma occurs if their is at least one other possibility. And I would claim their is... "WE DON'T "KNOW" (absolutely everything and questionably anything) Which means the notion of an "absolute perfection" can be loosely paraphrased as "the cumulative best GUESS we have". That sucker ain't pointing anywhere near "perfection" by these accounts.

I realize if god were perfect, this sort of thinking does follow. What would happen if god isn't/wasn't/will-never-be perfect? How does that eliminate said god from being a creator? We humans create shit all the time and man or man that does make us perfect any more then it would make the possibility of a god.

Your argument requires a god to be perfect, my idea of god does not (I would have to presume I know what is absolute, and I honestly can't intellectually get myself there.) Granted that is not the indoctrinated notion of what religion defines god as. Maybe it is the mechanisms of power and self prescribed authority and theocratic rule that has it wrong.

That entity god is a flipping genius. We humans as a species have never managed any creation that demonstrates such ambiguity. Roughly looking at a really big picture. What we can only imagine as the entire universe was created in such a way to leave that one question floating out there. We were created as a perfection seeking machine. If we can't find "it" "out there" we make it up. And then if all is going well in god land we "discover" something "new" It's really been there all along it is nothing new. It is only something new to our awareness. Why didn't we see it before? The only thing that has changed over time is the population and there are a lot more people that can be aware. New shit is bound to pop up.

My argument can be summarized by two phrases 1) we don't 'know' what we think we do, 2) number one changes.
my goal in life is to die and no one notices.
in other words; to live as audaciously as possible while drawing the least attention. Or at best something vaguely similar.
Mowk
Thinker
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:19 am

Mowk wrote:I realize if god were perfect, this sort of thinking does follow.
What would happen if god isn't/wasn't/will-never-be perfect? How does that eliminate said god from being a creator? We humans create shit all the time and man or man that does make us perfect any more then it would make the possibility of a god.

Your argument requires a god to be perfect, my idea of god does not (I would have to presume I know what is absolute, and I honestly can't intellectually get myself there.) Granted that is not the indoctrinated notion of what religion defines god as. Maybe it is the mechanisms of power and self prescribed authority and theocratic rule that has it wrong.]
My argument is the idea of God is inherently driven towards an absolutely perfect God. This is evident in the evolution of the idea of 'god' from animism, to polytheism to monotheism then to an ontological God [Islam, St. Anselm], i.e. the an absolutely perfect God.

As you had stated below;

Mowk wrote:What we can only imagine as the entire universe was created in such a way to leave that one question floating out there. We were created as a perfection seeking machine. If we can't find "it" "out there" we make it up.
As I had stated the idea of a God inherently has to be an absolutely perfect Being not as something real but the point is the majority humans are compelled psychologically to believe in a made-up God and they made it up to be absolutely perfect.

If 'your' god isn't/wasn't/will-never-be perfect [absolutely perfect] then your lesser than perfect God is inferior to another/others and will have to kiss the ass on another's God who is claimed to be absolutely perfect.

Thus when cornered all normal theists will naturally claim [revise] for their God to be absolutely perfect to avoid having to kiss the ass of another's God and leaving no room at all to be dominated by another God. Thus ultimately if theism, it has to be based on an absolutely perfect God.

The above support my P2, why God imperatively must be an absolutely perfect God and not any lesser. If theists are ignorant [at any time] of the weakness of believing a less than perfect God, they will eventually definitely revise their belief when cornered [evident by the evolution of the idea of God over history]. Changing a belief is so easy, just change their mind to the favored belief, viola!

As for P1, I had demonstrated why an Absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real in contrast to empirically-based relative absolutes or perfection [e.g. 100% score in an objective test].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:28 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Just because we are not shown the evidence does not mean that the evidence is not there. Thus we are all "stuck" until it can in fact be demonstrated definitively one way or the other.
Whatever that means.
It depends on what type of evidence we are expecting.
If we are expecting evidence of empirical-based things, then we cannot discount its possibility. I can agree there is a possibility of a tea-pot [empirically possible] flying somewhere out there in space billion of light years away. But this probability would be very low.

It's true of course that what would actually constitute hard evidence for God's existence will vary among different folks. But if someone were to announce that God had conveyed to him or her a promise that for an entire month no child would starve to death on planet earth, and, then, for an entire month, no child did in fact starve to death on planet earth, well, that would work for me.

Prismatic567 wrote: But if we are referring to God, it is not empirically-based at all. God is a philosophical idea churned out of primal reason and thus is an illusion.


Again, in my view, you assert this as though by the fact of asserting it that makes it true. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demostrate this empiraclly. Any more than Kant, in suggesting that in order to sustain the relevance of his categorical imperative [one rendition of a deontological morality] the existence of God [the transcending font] was imperative. As though this proves the existence of God.

And yet there may well be civilizations on other worlds that conceive of God in ways that have never even occurred to folks here on earth. They may be so much more advanced than we are that their thinking about God may in turn be all that much more sophisticated.


Prismatic567 wrote: No matter where the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic will apply.
Other civilization and their entities will share the same Universe and the ultimate absolutely perfect has to be same in substance regardless of how its forms are interpreted.


The existence of the universe -- multiverse? -- is still embedded in profoundly problematic ontological [teleological?] mysteries that only the most foolish of scientists would argue are now within our grasp.

Or are we to believe as some do that it is possible "logically" to explain why something exists rather than nothing? Or why it must be this something and not some other?

Using "the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic", encompass for us a definitive explanation for why Existence [this Existence] is all around us.

Prismatic567 wrote: With more sophisticated knowledge we will be able to dig deep to understand the human brain in relation to human existences and its problem. This is the basis for my point;

"Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage."


Okay, "philosophically and wisely" note a particular existential crises that besets the human race [in the is/ought world] and expound on what you construe [here and now] to be the more [or even the most] effective resolution.

In other words, in a world sans God.
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: 22416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:12 am

iambiguous wrote:It's true of course that what would actually constitute hard evidence for God's existence will vary among different folks. But if someone were to announce that God had conveyed to him or her a promise that for an entire month no child would starve to death on planet earth, and, then, for an entire month, no child did in fact starve to death on planet earth, well, that would work for me.
I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

Prismatic567 wrote: But if we are referring to God, it is not empirically-based at all. God is a philosophical idea churned out of primal reason and thus is an illusion.


Again, in my view, you assert this as though by the fact of asserting it that makes it true. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demostrate this empiraclly. Any more than Kant, in suggesting that in order to sustain the relevance of his categorical imperative [one rendition of a deontological morality] the existence of God [the transcending font] was imperative. As though this proves the existence of God.
As I had stated, I not merely asserting, but I have explained and justified the relevant P1 and P2 in my argument.
What Kant proposed is it is possible for 'God' to exists within his framework of morality. Such a god is not an absolutely perfect God but qualified to morality.
Kant stated categorically in his Critique of Pure Reason, it is impossible to prove the existence of God absolutely.

And yet there may well be civilizations on other worlds that conceive of God in ways that have never even occurred to folks here on earth. They may be so much more advanced than we are that their thinking about God may in turn be all that much more sophisticated.


Prismatic567 wrote: With more sophisticated knowledge we will be able to dig deep to understand the human brain in relation to human existences and its problem. This is the basis for my point;

"Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage."


Okay, "philosophically and wisely" note a particular existential crises that besets the human race [in the is/ought world] and expound on what you construe [here and now] to be the more [or even the most] effective resolution.
In other words, in a world sans God.
The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.
While there is the above main pro and other secondary benefits from theism, it is double-edged and has its terrible negatives of evils when SOME evil prone theists commit terrible evils when inspired by the evil laden words of God in some holy texts.
At present humanity already has alternative non-malignant approaches [from Eastern spiritualities] without evil laden elements in its doctrine to deal with this terrible angst.
Therefore if we have foolproof non-theistic alternative why should we settle for theistic approaches that has negative side effects.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:21 pm

I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.
How do you know that it is not caused by God?

It doesn't matter how you "defined" God ... here you have empirical evidence of God. This is a discovered God, not a mentally constructed God.

I realize the you define "God" as a human construct which you insist must be thought of as perfect and that your entire syllogism only applies to that particular definition. But that's not the general concept of God. God is known by His actions in/on the world which are revealed by prophets and by logical reasoning. In this example, that's exactly what appears to have happened. Why attribute it to aliens?

Have you talked yourself into believing that God does not exist and therefore nothing can be the work of God?

It seems that, for you, there can never be sufficient evidence of God's existence.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10101
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:05 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:It's true of course that what would actually constitute hard evidence for God's existence will vary among different folks. But if someone were to announce that God had conveyed to him or her a promise that for an entire month no child would starve to death on planet earth, and, then, for an entire month, no child did in fact starve to death on planet earth, well, that would work for me.
I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

How do you know that the race of "aliens" was not "absolutely perfect"?
You don't, because you still don't know what "perfect" means.
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: 25616
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:13 am

phyllo wrote:
I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.
How do you know that it is not caused by God?

It doesn't matter how you "defined" God ... here you have empirical evidence of God. This is a discovered God, not a mentally constructed God.
I agree an empirically based God is a possibility. But such a possibility is extremely low, perhaps 0.000..01% based on our current knowledge base.
In addition an empirically based God will end up with an infinite regression!

I realize the you define "God" as a human construct which you insist must be thought of as perfect and that your entire syllogism only applies to that particular definition. But that's not the general concept of God. God is known by His actions in/on the world which are revealed by prophets and by logical reasoning. In this example, that's exactly what appears to have happened. Why attribute it to aliens?

Have you talked yourself into believing that God does not exist and therefore nothing can be the work of God?

It seems that, for you, there can never be sufficient evidence of God's existence.


Note this post in another thread to explain why ultimately God must be an absolutely perfect God.
styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif

I understand there are a range of gods within polytheism.
Note the point I brought up, i.e. the idea of God is inherent and has naturally evolved from animism to polytheism to monotheism and ultimately to an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Those who are into polytheism are in a way ignorant and grabbed what that came and by cultural and traditions many are still stuck to it at present.
Given the rational choice, theists will rationally adopt a progressively greater God that will ultimate be an absolutely perfect God. This is why 5.4 billion theists are believing in a monotheistic God and the progress will ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.

I have stated, an absolutely perfect God is the ultimate because when cornered no theist will accept their God to be dominated by another. The theists' natural progression to avoid one's God being dominated will lead one to an absolutely perfect God with an optimism that such a God is real. No theists will concede to accept their God has to kiss the ass of another.

And in what way is this not so for "unempirical" gods? It's true that in terms of abstract concepts--like being all knowing--one can imagine a sort of limitless ability--such that for anything that can be known, an omniscient god would know it--but this is partly a consequence of not knowing, and not caring about how one would know, how omniscience is possible (just as you would be free to entertain the idea of an all-powerful army if you didn't think you had to understand what that would mean in terms of weapons, money, political support, number of soldiers, etc.--an all powerful army would just mean: capable of defeating any other army).

And besides, there's still a difference between being capable of imagining an all knowing god and the necessity of a god being all knowing. There's no reason to suppose that just because you can conceive a greater god, that this or that god must be that greater god.

^ Are you bringing Anselm's argument into the picture?


Btw, if any theist were to postulate an anthropomorhic God, which is empirically based, I agree such an empirically based God is empirically possible. But such possibility would be extremely negligible. To prove such a God, all one need to to bring the verifiable and justifiable evidence. The limitation of the empirically-based God is there will always be a greater empirical God than the one that is claimed.
So whatever empirical God a theist claim, another will claim another empirical God is greater and this culminate in an infinite regression.

To avoid an infinite regression and kissing the ass of another God, it is only logical that the smarter thinker theists had introduced an absolutely perfect God than which no other God can be greater in perfection.
Yes, I am bringing in St. Anselm's definition of an ontological God into the picture.
There is no other way for a thinking theist to get out of the above dilemma of infinite regression and having to kiss the ass of another God than to resort to an absolute perfect God.

When a theist claims;
"my God is a Being than which no greater in perfection can exists"
it give no room for another God to dominate it nor command the lesser god to kiss his ass.
Ultimately all educated and thinking theists will end up with an absolutely perfect God [the default definition of what is a God].

But I had argued, an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real, i.e. empirically + rationally real because absolute perfection [as argued] is impossible to be real.


Any counter to the above argument?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:22 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:It's true of course that what would actually constitute hard evidence for God's existence will vary among different folks. But if someone were to announce that God had conveyed to him or her a promise that for an entire month no child would starve to death on planet earth, and, then, for an entire month, no child did in fact starve to death on planet earth, well, that would work for me.
I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

How do you know that the race of "aliens" was not "absolutely perfect"?
You don't, because you still don't know what "perfect" means.

As I had stated, the "aliens" must be human-liked in another planet [location] billion of light years away. All these are empirically based elements and thus can be empirically tested by us. To prove it conclusively all one need is to bring the empirical evidence to be tested and verified.

Because these so claimed aliens are empirically-based they cannot be absolutely perfect [as a transcendental ideal].
If one claims an 'absolutely perfect being' out there in the universe, then that by definition has to be an absolutely perfect God, a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:23 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

How do you know that the race of "aliens" was not "absolutely perfect"?
You don't, because you still don't know what "perfect" means.
As I had stated, the "aliens" must be human-liked in another planet [location] billion of light years away. All these are empirically based elements and thus can be empirically tested by us. To prove it conclusively all one need is to bring the empirical evidence to be tested and verified.

Wait. First, you claimed that these aliens performed a "miraculous" feat (very miraculous). So they were certainly not "human-like". Why not "god-like"??

Prismatic567 wrote:Because these so claimed aliens are empirically-based they cannot be absolutely perfect [as a transcendental ideal].

No, wait again. Where have you proven that "empirically based" truths cannot be "absolutely perfect"???

Prismatic567 wrote:If one claims an 'absolutely perfect being' out there in the universe, then that by definition has to be an absolutely perfect God, a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.

That is what intelligent people call "tautological", a type of useless/pointless statement.

No science or "empirical evidence of perfection" can be gained until you define, in some useful, realistic form, what "perfect" means. Saying that there is "absolute" and "relative" perfection is NOT defining what "perfect" means. I gave you a definition (one which you will never be able to contest), but you refused it, so it is up to you.

You are STILL failing on the most fundamental level.
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: 25616
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:37 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

James S Saint wrote:How do you know that the race of "aliens" was not "absolutely perfect"?
You don't, because you still don't know what "perfect" means.

As I had stated, the "aliens" must be human-liked in another planet [location] billion of light years away. All these are empirically based elements and thus can be empirically tested by us. To prove it conclusively all one need is to bring the empirical evidence to be tested and verified.

James S Saint wrote:Wait. First, you claimed that these aliens performed a "miraculous" feat (very miraculous). So they were certainly not "human-like". Why not "god-like"??
I said to be empirically possible, whatever must have empirical elements.
The only possible empirical agency of greater power than humans we can link to is human-liked.
What was speculated was "miraculous" relative to what human can do. You can say it is 'god-liked" but in this case it is not God per-se. Whatever is it like, if it is empirically possible, it must have empirical elements.

Prismatic567 wrote:Because these so claimed aliens are empirically-based they cannot be absolutely perfect [as a transcendental ideal].

No, wait again. Where have you proven that "empirically based" truths cannot be "absolutely perfect"???
You have to read the thread again.
Generally what is empirical based cannot be absolutely perfect which is transcendental and beyond the empirical.

Prismatic567 wrote:If one claims an 'absolutely perfect being' out there in the universe, then that by definition has to be an absolutely perfect God, a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.

That is what intelligent people call "tautological", a type of useless/pointless statement.
Didn't you catch the definition,
"an absolutely perfect God = a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist."

No science or "empirical evidence of perfection" can be gained until you define, in some useful, realistic form, what "perfect" means. Saying that there is "absolute" and "relative" perfection is NOT defining what "perfect" means. I gave you a definition (one which you will never be able to contest), but you refused it, so it is up to you.
You are STILL failing on the most fundamental level.
Your counter is too shallow.
I have already given you a basic definition of 'perfect' from the dictionary with an extension to perfect = absolute, total, and unqualified.
Btw, do you understand what is absolute, total and unqualified?

My meaning of perfect cover the full range from the empirical [qualified] to the absolute [unqualified].

I have explained the term 'absolutely perfect' arise out of psychological impulses and such a term is at best a thought which cannot be represented by anything in reality, thus an impossibility.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]