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 James S Saint » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:51 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Point is the that 'zombie' effect [psychological impulses] is active in the majority of humans who are atheists and others, while it is dormant in genuine non-theists who has the capacity to modulate or suppress such impulses.

In humans it is not actually a parasitic infection, but the state of the human mind [as evolved] is such that it enable a kind of neural and mental processes to emerge that drive humans [zombie-liked] into theism and other secular psychological issues.

Although an interesting theory, what you seem to be missing is that you are infected. Frankly, according to the theory, how would you (or anyone) know? As long as you have an opinion (as you obviously do) you are suspect for infection.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:39 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Point is the that 'zombie' effect [psychological impulses] is active in the majority of humans who are atheists and others, while it is dormant in genuine non-theists who has the capacity to modulate or suppress such impulses.

In humans it is not actually a parasitic infection, but the state of the human mind [as evolved] is such that it enable a kind of neural and mental processes to emerge that drive humans [zombie-liked] into theism and other secular psychological issues.

Although an interesting theory, what you seem to be missing is that you are infected. Frankly, according to the theory, how would you (or anyone) know? As long as you have an opinion (as you obviously do) you are suspect for infection.
As an evolved human being, DNA wise, yes I am inherently infected with this "zombie parasite".

But since I am not a theist, it meant that this "zombie parasite" [theistic aspects] must be inactive and dormant within my brain. Point is I understand its processes and how it work, and I am able to suppress and get immunity from it at present.

This inherent zombie parasite is dormant in my system but there is no guarantee it will be permanently dormant. It could reactivate and be active in me if I am not careful or is caught in certain conditions that could trigger it to be active. So I am treading very carefully to ensure this inherent "zombie parasite" don't get reactivate within my brain.
Note the once world famous atheist, Anthony Flew turned deist in his later life when the "zombie parasite" got reactivated and he turned to God.

How would any one know?
By default if one is a theist, then the "zombie parasite" is active and one is subliminally compelled to believe in a God to soothe the rising psychological angst.
In the secular world, those with an active "zombie parasite" would turn to drugs to soothe their psychological pains [explicit or subliminal] and they cannot stop [when under control by the "zombie parasite" ] even when many understand the heavy risks/threats of the side effects of drugs to their life and others.

Beside compelling many to being drug addicts, the "zombie parasite" also drive many to commit other evils and negatives that negate the well-being of the individual and that victim while aware of the danger, could not do anything about it but continue to destroy oneself.
Some can wake up and suppress the "zombie parasite" but the majority cannot.

Since the problem is psychological, the solution to it has to be psychological, i.e. psychotherapy as in Buddhism, various Eastern Religions, existential psychology and the likes.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:00 am

Prismatic567 wrote:As an evolved human being, DNA wise, yes I am inherently infected with this "zombie parasite".

But since I am not a theist, it meant that this "zombie parasite" [theistic aspects] must be inactive and dormant within my brain. Point is I understand its processes and how it work, and I am able to suppress and get immunity from it at present.

But you ARE a theist. You simply can't see that you are .. perhaps due to that "zombie parasite".

Once you propose that someone can be blinded and yet not know it, how can you claim to be knowingly otherwise?

Prismatic567 wrote:This inherent zombie parasite is dormant in my system but there is no guarantee it will be permanently dormant.

That is what you boastfully claim. But I am seeing you in a different light, quite "zombied".

Now how are you going to demonstrate otherwise?

Prismatic567 wrote:How would any one know?
By default if one is a theist, then the "zombie parasite" is active and one is subliminally compelled to believe in a God to soothe the rising psychological angst.

It is merely your own "parasite" telling you that.

YOU are a theist. You just can't see it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:02 pm

By default if one is a theist, then the "zombie parasite" is active and one is subliminally compelled to believe in a God to soothe the rising psychological angst.
In the secular world, those with an active "zombie parasite" would turn to drugs to soothe their psychological pains [explicit or subliminal] and they cannot stop [when under control by the "zombie parasite" ] even when many understand the heavy risks/threats of the side effects of drugs to their life and others.

Beside compelling many to being drug addicts, the "zombie parasite" also drive many to commit other evils and negatives that negate the well-being of the individual and that victim while aware of the danger, could not do anything about it but continue to destroy oneself.
Some can wake up and suppress the "zombie parasite" but the majority cannot.

Since the problem is psychological, the solution to it has to be psychological, i.e. psychotherapy as in Buddhism, various Eastern Religions, existential psychology and the likes.
When you start describing people who disagree with you as "ill", then you know that you have a problem.

It seem particularly out of place in a philosophy forum where people come to discuss various ideas.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10357
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:05 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Biguous wrote:Another general description. The same or different, in agreement or not in agreement, regarding what?


People are different in general. They have different goals, they have different abilities, they have different experiences, they reach different conclusions, etc.

For example, you are different from KT folk in the sense that you hold opinions that they don't.


Yes, but as Satyr will insist, that all revolves around understanding "human nature" in precisely the same manner as he does. And that revolves in turn around certain "biological imperatives" relating to such things as race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. And those who grapple with things like value judgments and religion [God] are only rational to the extent that they share his own narrative.

Why? Because he does not see it as just another subjective narrative at all. On the contrary, he construes himself as embodying the whole objective truth regarding every and all human behavior.

And there are many, many more just like him. Yes, they do share his judgment that there is but one whole objective truth here, but they assure him that it is not his. How could it be when it is theirs? And just as Satyr sees all the other objectivists [more or less derisively] as "one of them", all the other objectivists see him [more or less derisively] as "one of them" too.

What I do is to explore the extent to which individual "goals" are rooted existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts derived from actual sets of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge.

Then I invite folks like Satyr to examine their own value judgments by bringing them "down to earth" and exploring actual contexts in which their own value judgments precipitated conflicting behaviors with others.

I invite him to probe his own assessment of where genes stop and memes begin.

Yes, people are different genetically. And people have entirely unique interactions with others in the world of memes. How then are we to understand the interaction between nature and nurture pertaining to a particular context out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view? What can philosophers tell us definitively here? Are there entirely natural and entirely unnatural behaviors? Are there behaviors judged by God? Are there moral obligations derived rationally [deontologically] from categorical imperatives? Are there political ideologies rooted in Science [Marxism] or in Reason [Objectivism]?

What on earth are you suggesting here?


Magnus Anderson wrote: What I am suggesting is that the defining feature of absolutists is their belief in infallible (i.e. absolutely true) opinions. The distinction between "those who know absolute truth" and "those who don't" is merely a consequence of this belief in infallible opinions.


Yes, this seems reasonable to me. But it still all comes down to the distinction that I make between those who "argue" or "define" God and absolute/objective value judgments into existence "in their head", and those able to demonstrate empirically, scientifically, logically, epistemologically etc., that what they believe in their head is what all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Whether that means demonstrating that God is an impossibility or demonstrating that, sans God, mere mortals are able to describe philosophically the difference between right and wrong, good and bad behaviors

Everyone is in agreement that God is an impossibility. But: Is that the same thing as demonstrating that in fact this is true?


Magnus Anderson wrote: If God is absolutely perfect, and if absolute perfection is something that cannot be experienced, then God isn't something that can be experienced.


Okay, but how is this assertion not just another example of a proposition said to be true because the manner in which you define the meaning of the words used in the proposition itself [in that particular order] is by default to be accepted as true by everyone reacting to it?

Instead, what we often find [on threads like this] are dueling "intellectual contraptions", "intellectual concepts". Nothing is ever really resolved because "truth" here revolves entirely around words defining and defending other words.

Is there an absolute/objective answer to the question, "is God an impossibility?"


Magnus Anderson wrote: There are no absolute answers. Regardless of what kind of question you are asking.


And you have demonstrated this --- how? Instead you merely assert it given your own understanding of the words that encompass the assertion itself!

Clearly, if God is not an impossibility there are. But how would that be demonstrated?

But how have you really proven then that James is a "moron", other than by insisting that the definition and the meaning that you give to the words comprising the argument/analysis itself, are by default, the starting point.


Magnus Anderson wrote: That's exactly why I am interested in the subject of intelligence (or more specifically, in the subject of reasoning.)

We can't "prove" or "disprove" anything. What we can do is we can make inferences based on some finite set of observations.


So, how far out on the limb are you willing to go here? Mathematics, the scientific method, the laws of physics, chemical interactions, meteorology, geology, technology, engineering, logic etc. Nothing here [in the seeming either/or world] can be "proven" or "disproven"? In what sense --- solipsism? Hume's correlation/cause and effect disjunction? A Sim world? demonic dreams?

You argue both that there is plenty of evidence for "intelligence" but that nothing can either be "proven" or "disproven" using this intelligence. I must be misunderstanding you.

Again, though, when I note...

"One of them" will either take the discussion there [down to earth] or he/she won't.


You note...

Magnus Anderson wrote: That's true. I personally won't. Maybe someone else will?


We are clearly stuck then. While insisting that "...my study of intelligence, contrary to what you're trying to say here, is based on observations of how living organisms act...", you project [to me] as but one more or less autodidactic insisting that only if others accept your own scholastic conclusions [encompassed in your own world of words] regarding how they act, are they really intelligent at all.

Which, by and large, is basically what they are saying about you. Then around and around ["conceptually"] you [and folks like James] go.
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: 23528
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:38 pm

If God is absolutely perfect, and if absolute perfection is something that cannot be experienced, then God isn't something that can be experienced.

This is how I interpret Prismatic's syllogism.
That's doesn't make sense because "perfection" doesn't prevent people from experiencing a small aspect of God.

People are not able to hear all frequencies of sound, but we know sound exists because we experience some sounds.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10357
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:30 am

phyllo wrote:When you start describing people who disagree with you as "ill", then you know that you have a problem.
"ill" ?? that is your rhetoric.
Within all humans there is a range of psychological problems and it is critical all humans recognized and accept they have these problems. Denial will hinder prevention and psychological progress.

Generally what is term 'ill' is recognized in the DSM-IV
Psychiatric Diagnoses are categorized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th. Edition. Better known as the DSM-IV, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers all mental health disorders for both children and adults. It also lists known causes of these disorders, statistics in terms of gender, age at onset, and prognosis as well as some research concerning the optimal treatment approaches.
https://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm/


Theism is not listed in the DSM-IV so I would not termed it "ill" but theism is nevertheless some sort of psychological problem suffered by the majority of humans.

It seem particularly out of place in a philosophy forum where people come to discuss various ideas.
There is no denial, throughout the history of mankind theism has caused untold sufferings to humans when SOME believers are inspired by their God to commit terrible violence and evils.
Therefore it is critical we research to find out the ultimate root causes that inspire such violence and all sorts of theistic related evils. A philosophy forum is one of the most appropriate place to discuss these ideas.

I believe once we have understood the origin, mechanics, operation and process of this "zombie parasite" in the human brain on a neural basis, humanity will be able to prevent much of theistic related evils and violence. [note all evils and violence must be addressed but this theistic related forum is not the place]
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:36 am

James S Saint wrote:YOU are a theist. You just can't see it.

:o
Now I understand why Magnus Anderson is using the 'M' word on you.
Based on your insistence of the above falsehood on me, I am tempted as well.

Come on, lets get back to common sense and reality!!
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:18 pm

There is no denial, throughout the history of mankind theism has caused untold sufferings to humans when SOME believers are inspired by their God to commit terrible violence and evils.
Therefore it is critical we research to find out the ultimate root causes that inspire such violence and all sorts of theistic related evils. A philosophy forum is one of the most appropriate place to discuss these ideas.
We can't even discuss your syllogism without you going into your views on the psychology of theists. It taints all your threads.

I think what James was saying when he called you a theist is that you are a preacher on a soapbox and you are as blinded by your beliefs as a "true believer" theist preacher. In your case, the savior is Kant and the bible is the collection of his writings.

Ask yourself what the impact would be if Kant's writings turned out to be wrong.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10357
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:15 pm

God is a mirror of our soul, a narcissistic tool to enable to see ourselves as a separate being , the author of the beginning of.the creation of our conscious awareness of our self.

God is not.only a possibility, he is a.necessity.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:30 pm

phyllo wrote:I think what James was saying when he called you a theist is that you are a preacher on a soapbox and you are as blinded by your beliefs as a "true believer" theist preacher. In your case, the savior is Kant and the bible is the collection of his writings.

Exactly. A "theist" is merely a single minded theorist, stubbornly worshiping his own little theory, a thought too far above the OPer for his consideration.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:53 am

phyllo wrote:What's the "need" if all I'm doing is calling a circle, which satisfies the definition of circle, a "perfect circle"?? :-"


A definition cannot be followed without first interpreting it. You need to "complete it" with necessary information that is not specified within it.
As I've said before, in order to determine whether any given shape is a circle or not you have to choose a finite number of points on the boundary of that shape.
You choose a finite number of points on the boundary and you check to see that every point is at an equal distance from the center of the shape.
If that's the case, you declare the shape is a circle.
If it is not, you declare the shape is not a circle.
The definition DOES NOT specify how many points you should pick.
The definition says that "every point must be the same distance from the center".
But what does "every point" mean?
It must be interpreted.
If you interpret it to mean "every point that can be identified at every viewing distance" then no test can be performed because the number of viewpoints is not specified.
You must choose a number of viewpoints. You don't have to it do consciously though. You can, for example, say that you are not choosing a number of viewpoints. But if your actions consider only a finite number of viewpoints, which they have no choice but to do so, then it's almost the same as if you consciously chose a number of viewpoints.
The number of points does not have to be determined by need.
It can be determined by anything else, such as, for example, a dice roll.
It does not matter because in both cases the missing information is defined by context.
And what is context but information that surrounds (i.e. it is outside of, it is external to) the information that you are focusing on?
In humans, the number of points is to a great extent determined by visual system.
The definition takes things . . . out of context.
It makes them simple.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:25 am

phyllo wrote:
There is no denial, throughout the history of mankind theism has caused untold sufferings to humans when SOME believers are inspired by their God to commit terrible violence and evils.
Therefore it is critical we research to find out the ultimate root causes that inspire such violence and all sorts of theistic related evils. A philosophy forum is one of the most appropriate place to discuss these ideas.
We can't even discuss your syllogism without you going into your views on the psychology of theists. It taints all your threads.
It is a big mistake to put aside the psychological factor whenever it involves human thoughts and actions.

I think what James was saying when he called you a theist is that you are a preacher on a soapbox and you are as blinded by your beliefs as a "true believer" theist preacher. In your case, the savior is Kant and the bible is the collection of his writings.

Ask yourself what the impact would be if Kant's writings turned out to be wrong.

I have to take JSS literally, he did not put the term theist in '..'

I do not agree with Kant on a 100% basis. I have spent 3 years full time on Kant's theories and have understood them sufficiently to be reliable and his theories complement with those of Buddhism.
When arguing for my thesis in this case, I refer other fields of knowledge, psychology, Buddhism, biology [e.g. zombie ants], neuroscience and others.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:30 am

Meno_ wrote:God is a mirror of our soul, a narcissistic tool to enable to see ourselves as a separate being , the author of the beginning of.the creation of our conscious awareness of our self.

God is not.only a possibility, he is a.necessity.
Yes, God is a critical psychological necessity due to an inherent existential crisis driven by "zombie parasites.'
It is like a child needing a security blanket to cling to and talking to imaginary friends for psychological comfort and other reasons.

But psychological necessity do not translate to possibility and reality.

If you insist God is a possibility [empirically] then prove it.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:23 pm

Phyllo,

Which brings me to this question : what are the characteristics of a perfect god?


In my book, there is only one ~~ that of total mystery.
The more characteristics we give to this god, the more imperfect it becomes since it is based on human assumption, projection and subjective thinking.

Yes, I am probably wrong.
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: 15040
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:18 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Meno_ wrote:God is a mirror of our soul, a narcissistic tool to enable to see ourselves as a separate being , the author of the beginning of.the creation of our conscious awareness of our self.


God is not.only a possibility, he is a.necessity.
Yes, God is a critical psychological necessity
due to an inherent existential crisis driven by "zombie parasites.'
It is like a child needing a security blanket to cling
to and talking to imaginary friends for psychological
comfort and other reasons.

But psychological necessity do not translate to
possibility and reality.


If you insist God is a possibility [empirically] then
prove it.



Well here goes, understand no simple matter although they do say about the most complex , that found a mentally they are the most simple.

And Arc, here I am being rash and judge mental, but like a good marine, temper fidelis: As Always.



It starts with Narcissus with a small n, since at that point in his career, when he perceives his visage, he thinks it’s another person.

He falls in love with him, and doesent realize that reflection is mirror like, he thinks that the person is down below somewhere, below the surface of the pool of water, in an underworld of some sorts, and he doesent reflect on that much in both, the optical and cognitive sense.

So his thinking on the matter is not two fold, but he really cannot see himself. He knows not what he looks like, so in the sense of distinguishing himself from others is nil. He has no self awareness,no self consciousness,ergo no self.

What does he need to realize that it is himself he is seeing, knowing?

Or rather, what happens, between the time that he doesent , when he does get to know himself?

Is he setting the stage for a gradual Socratic quest?
Does he do it all by himself, without the use of a Deus ex Machina?

Or, is there an intermediary, a kind of nexus between a god, or a god idea, that comes to him, where suddenly he sees the light? Or, does he gradually learn to differentiate between himself and others like him?

In his physical evolution does a correlating capacity to distinguish surface from depth, the underlying objects which become evident upon reflection?

Re=flection, is implied in Sartre where he states flatly, that ‘The Other as a subject can’t help but treat Your Being as an Object. This is interesting from the point of view, that the 20 th century has brought about a reversal in thought regarding the subject and the object inasmuch, as the relation has come to a full circle, the perception of the other is no longer a given, it is relative to the consciousness of the other. It is no longer restricted to the idea that man has been positioned as the ruler of the jungle of beings beneath him, of those living in an underworld of beings more pertaining to the viewers above interpreting reflection as those above and below.

The man Narcissus sees from above to below, is one, who breaks up his apprension, he identifies with him, and longs for a return to his formidable but unformed terrain, it , he draws him, in a place where the centripetal forces of return appear to overwhelm the forces throwing him opposite, centrifugally, into where he is. There, he above, his reflection starts to bother him, for the underlying visage is so direct and personal, toward him as an existential referense looking exclusively at him, inordinately concerned about him and him alone, that the Other, seems reverentially tied to him and him alone.

He is absolutely concerned about Narcissus, and Narcissus absolutely identifies in that optical sense with him.

That identity, sustained, becomes the logical basis in his mind of the Absolute guarantor of identity. It’s in the look, a look Sartre does concern himself with in ‘Being and Nothingness’.

After Narcissus was punished by the godess out of jealousy, the complex erotic duplicity had incepted into the war of the sexes, based on multi form sets of rationale, idealization and progression.

The godess as an erotic medium, assured his continued being, by affecting his psyche to atone for his mistake, and as a consequence, he shifted his tenure toward less feminine more tolerant and wisdom filled Oedipal fracture, slicing off the feminine from the more authorative masculine identification. This was a basic shift, starting with the reflection moving from simple erotic, to more complex differentiating, authorship yearning basic representations.

The end result was a requirement to understand god as a Being , moving away from mere emotion filled, vanity inspired powers , toward more differentiated, less understood reflections, where the reflection became somehow both: a simultaneity of :visual and cognitive and participatory idea, whereby the platform was set to progress beyond mere participation mystique, in the words of Levy Strauss.

That this platform evolved slowly or suddenly spring out of the mind of a mythological creature, is irrelevant, because at this stage of human evolution, time as a transcendental idea was not understood, by way of experience. It was a timeless era, where the Idea for further evolution in reflection had to utilize, the mirroring ideas inherent in the fabric of the evolving consciousness.

It was immaterial therefore , at his point, to ask the question of the difference of believing in It, as a modus operans, as to the reality of the belief, vis. that is there a real god, or did he need to be invented, since it read as part and parcel of human development.

The anthropomorphic idea is a look backward through the annals of a very long time, therefore suspect in its presupposing idea.
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:30 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Phyllo,

Which brings me to this question : what are the characteristics of a perfect god?


In my book, there is only one ~~ that of total mystery.
The more characteristics we give to this god, the more imperfect it becomes since it is based on human assumption, projection and subjective thinking.

Yes, I am probably wrong.
God can't be a total mystery because if He was, then there would be no reason to think that He exists. IOW, a "total mystery" God would be a total fabrication of the imagination.

There has to be some indication of God's existence in the universe. Sure, it can be a tiny "tip of the iceberg" but you can draw some conclusions from it.

Theists tend to be too enthusiastic about God and they give Him all sorts of amazing characteristics. One has to examine those characteristics and decide which ones are supported by evidence.

Characteristics like omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are inherently contradictory and fundamentally incomprehensible to humans.

One can say that God is very powerful, knows a great deal and wants humans to thrive. I would say that's the limit of what can be concluded from "looking around".
Yes, I am probably wrong.
Don't beat yourself up. There is no reason to do so.

Pursue your inquiries with confidence but not arrogance. Confidence makes you flexible and strong. Arrogance makes you rigid and brittle.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10357
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:50 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:As I've said before, in order to determine whether any given shape is a circle or not you have to choose a finite number of points on the boundary of that shape.
You choose a finite number of points on the boundary and you check to see that every point is at an equal distance from the center of the shape.
If that's the case, you declare the shape is a circle.
If it is not, you declare the shape is not a circle.
The definition DOES NOT specify how many points you should pick.
The definition says that "every point must be the same distance from the center".
But what does "every point" mean?
It must be interpreted.

And as we have told you before, "EVERY POINT" means that there cannot be ANY points that are NOT equidistant from the center. So you MAY NOT pick any less than EVERY point related to the shape.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:13 am

Meno_ wrote:...
It was immaterial therefore , at his point, to ask the question of the difference of believing in It, as a modus operans, as to the reality of the belief, vis. that is there a real god, or did he need to be invented, since it read as part and parcel of human development.
...
I can't grasp you points fully.
You used the example of 'n' and "N." It this the small 'self' and the big "Self"
Many theistic philosophies trace from the small 'self' to the big 'Self' and identify the all-encompassing absolute "SELF" as God, e.g. Brahman, etc.

My point is, whatever the emerging idea of God, ultimately it has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God and as I have demonstrated, such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.
Being an impossibility meant it is moot and a non-starter and the question of God's existence cannot [it is impossible] be raised in terms of reality.

The only valid reason and usefulness of 'God exists' is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:15 am

James S Saint wrote:And as we have told you before, "EVERY POINT" means that there cannot be ANY points that are NOT equidistant from the center. So you MAY NOT pick any less than EVERY point related to the shape.


What you're doing is you are substituting one vague statement with another. You are substituting "every point must be equidistant from the center" with "there cannot be any points that are not equidistant from the center". In both cases, the number of points that have to be tested remains unspecified.

In order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must pick a finite number of points on the boundary of the shape. When you pick a finite number of points on the boundary of the shape, what you have to do is you have to measure the distances between each one of these points and the center of the shape. Once you are done you compare the measured distances. If they are equal, the shape is a circle. If they are not, the shape is not a circle.

Your point in that other thread when you made this claim was merely that you could make the process shorter by declaring that the shape is not a circle the moment you measured a distance that is not the same as previously measured distances. That is true. However, it is irrelevant.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:34 am

James S Saint wrote:And as we have told you before, "EVERY POINT" means that there cannot be ANY points that are NOT equidistant from the center. So you MAY NOT pick any less than EVERY point related to the shape.
Yes, the above represent an ideal absolute perfect circle that can only exists in theory, thoughts and reason.

The fact is such an ideal absolute perfect circle [empirically based] cannot exists empirically in reality.
In empirical reality, there is no fixed grounds for one to fix every points [centered] to measure from the center of the circle.

One of the closest one can get to a 'perfect' circle is construct one by using single carbon atom[s] side by side to draw/mark along the circumference of the circle. But such a circle is at most relative, i.e. relative to carbon atoms, the scientific instruments used and the observer/measurer.
But the fact is carbon atoms are not stable in terms of its electron, proton, quarks, etc. What we have here are moving points in reality [merely one goes out of its intended position] and thus there is no constancy to sustain the concept of a perfect circle.

Therefore there is no such thing and impossible for an absolutely perfect circle to exists in reality.

Another point is a circle is empirically based and thus can be considered for empirical possibility. But ultimately under finer analysis an absolute perfect circle cannot be an empirical possibility in reality.

However note God has no empirical basis at all but is merely thought-based. Thus God has no empirical possibility in reality. An ideal of an absolutely perfect God is worse, it is absolutely an impossibility in reality.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:39 am

The concept of "perfect circle" is a category of categories. In the same way that an infinite decimal is a category of numbers. In this sense, I do not deny, it is meaningful.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:01 am

Prismatic567 wrote: note God has no empirical basis at all but is merely thought-based.

Strictly your own pet theory.
Prove your theory without merely presuming it as premise.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:03 am

I can't believe that anyone finds this interesting, let alone that it's still going on.

Seriously. I called in on the first page. It's a reformulation of the problem of evil. Anyone posting on a philosophy should know the limits of both sides of this debate like the backs of their hands.

Boring.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 24913
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:03 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:I can't believe that anyone finds this interesting, let alone that it's still going on.

Seriously. I called in on the first page. It's a reformulation of the problem of evil. Anyone posting on a philosophy should know the limits of both sides of this debate like the backs of their hands.
Boring.

The 'problem of evil' as I had explained is a subset of this OP's encompassing thesis, God is an Impossibility.

Your last point was,
viewtopic.php?p=2683397#p2683397
i.e. you insisted you had never heard of people claiming God as what I am presenting, e.g. a perfect God.
I provided a link from SEP re Descartes claiming a Supremely Perfect Being.

I have further argued here, the ultimate of any God must imperatively be an absolutely perfect God, else a theist will end up with an inferior God. When made aware their gods are inferior, a rational believer will opt for a more superior God, the most perfect God and to the ultimate of 'a Being than which no greater can be conceived' - the ontological God.

Boring? obviously you are entitled to your opinion.

This proof [God is an Impossibility] is very significant for humanity's progress and well being.
This proof 'God is an impossibility' will cut off the ground for theists absolutely and the most significant is those 'SOME' evil prone believers will not have grounds and basis to be inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence as evidently from the past to the present.

I understand the idea of God is a critical psychological necessity for the majority to provide comfort of security against some inevitable angst. Humanity will need to find alternatives [non-theistic spirituality, psychology, etc.] to deal with the inevitable angst.

I argue if you insist on maintaining and sustaining theism, you [may not be aware] are directly or indirectly complicit [providing support via majority consensus] to the existing and future evils & violence committed by those evil prone theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]