God is an Impossibility

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:17 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:How do you come to the false conclusion again that it would be "ridiculous" to define "God as a non-living without agency"?
The default is; God is the creator of the Whole Universe. It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency.

If you bother to stop and think, it is "ridiculous" to think that the God that created literally all physical existence, is a "living being".
But of course, you have trouble with defining "living" anyway.
You are running out of ideas to counter my arguments.
It is obvious the idea of God is attributed with qualities that are different from living human beings.
"living" as attributed to God meant 'active' i.e. capable of generating effects rather than 'dead' or 'dormant'.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:34 am

Prismatic567 wrote:You are running out of ideas to counter my arguments.

Well, you have only been wrong in a limited number of ways. Even you haven't been infinitely wrong.

But you not accepting what everyone is telling you are your errors, hardly negates the fact that they are errors.

Prismatic567 wrote:It is obvious the idea of God is attributed with qualities that are different from living human beings.
"living" as attributed to God meant 'active' i.e. capable of generating effects rather than 'dead' or 'dormant'.

A static or "potential" electric field is capable of generating effects - electric current. That is why it is called "potential". Every form of potential energy is capable of generating actualized energy (eg. kinetic, electric, whatever).

So every potential is "living"?
They do call it "a live wire".
But that's seems a poor definition of "living" and in this case, undermines your final intent.
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: 25765
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:43 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:How do you come to the false conclusion again that it would be "ridiculous" to define "God as a non-living without agency"?

The default is; God is the creator of the Whole Universe. It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency.

It is not ridiculous. So you have concluded falsely agian.

Why do you not say: "Living beings or living things are not perfect; so it is very likely that God is different from them"? This would make much more sense than your ridiculous statement: "It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:59 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

True. But I can dream, can't I? [-o<
What is dreamt is always conditioned to the dreamer, thus empirical.
If you dream of a God, ultimately it is still an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.


Ultimately? In my view, only in the sense that this is circumscribed within the parameters of your own definitions and meaning. And thus circumventing the definitions and the meanings of those who don't share them.

But then we are back to connecting the dots between any particular set of premises and any particular conclusion [like Kant's] to an actual extant God one is able to demonstrate does in fact exist. And then we are back to why anyone would be motivated to tell the "inquiring murderer" that a friend was in the house, unless they were able to convince themselves that a transcending font does see all.


Prismatic567 wrote: Kant only stated a God can exists within the Moral Framework [as qualified] which ultimately is absolute and thus an impossibility.


I'm less interested in what Kant did or did not say about the transcending font/Moral Framework, and more interested in what, for all practical purposes, he was able to demonstrate as true for all of us "out in the world" of actual human interactions. Sans God, what is the most [or the only] rational argument when confronting the "inquiring intruder"?

Prismatic567 wrote: The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.


Yes, this and the fact that the evolution of life on planet earth has resulted in mindful matter [the human brain] actually able to ponder why something happens one way and not another way. And that would seem inevitably to lead to this: pondering why anything happens at all.

And isn't "God" one possible explanation?

What always staggers my mind though [above all else] is the possibility that in a wholly determined universe even this exchange itself is only as it ever could have been!!

How does "I" even begin to wrap itself around that? If that is even within the reach of "I" autonomously.

The fact of Existence Itself seems to get more and more bewildering [staggering] the vaster the universe -- the multiverse? -- becomes.


Prismatic567 wrote: As I had stated above.
"The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority."
If you dig into this thesis and understand your empirical "I" [know thyself] you are more likely to get the answer and have better control of yourself than chasing eternally expanding infinities out there.

Yes, 'god' is one answer but it is an impulsive one like how Hume demonstrated induction is from one's internal psychology of customs and habits from constant conjunctions.


Still, you state these things in the manner of what I construe to be an objectivist frame of mind. As though infinitesimally tiny specks of existence in the vastness of All There Is [you and I] could actually be privy to the one and only explanation regarding matters like this.

And, sure, you may well be. But the fact that others here dispute your definitions, meaning and logic speaks volumes regarding that yawning gap between what we think we know about God [here and now] and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate conclusively what all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

And there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of objectivists out there all clamoring to insist that their own take on God finally does pin Him down.

For example, the Real God. Right, James?

Still, until the practitioners of "Eastern spiritualities" are able to connect the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave, and that which they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave, and that which "in their head" they conceive to be God, how are they not in the same boat that the practitioners of "Western spiritualities" are in.

Here, I see very little difference at all.

In other words, the less God becomes an intellectual contraption discussed in places like this, the more He becomes a psychological contraption to comfort and console those in the face of all of the many staggering vicissitudes that follow them from the cradle to the grave.


Prismatic567 wrote: Note I was referring to non-theistic Eastern philosophies and the question of what lies on the other side of the grave [God & afterlife] do not arise.


Okay, but even secular philosophers have to grapple with conflicting goods on this side of the grave. How are they not in the same boat as the rest of us?

How [for all practical purposes] are their own values [out in any particular world] not entangled in the manner in which I construe the existential interaction of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

God in my view is the only entity that all of this can be subsumed in. Other than the profound mystery that would come embedded in a wholly determined universe.
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: 22637
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:04 pm

Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:16 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

iambiguous wrote:True. But I can dream, can't I? [-o<
What is dreamt is always conditioned to the dreamer, thus empirical.
If you dream of a God, ultimately it is still an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.


iambiguous wrote:[Ultimately? In my view, only in the sense that this is circumscribed within the parameters of your own definitions and meaning. And thus circumventing the definitions and the meanings of those who don't share them.
All truths are circumscribed within the parameters of a specific framework of principles, definitions, meanings, assumptions etc.
If it is a personal, then it is subjective and has minimal credibility until it is shared and agreed by many.

The ultimate idea of God as an absolutely perfect God is inferred from various terms and definition of God is not mine but claimed by the majority of theists, i.e. 5.4 out of all 7+ billion people. As such my inference has a credible basis.

Based on the above, I have supported with detailed arguments why such a God is an impossibility.

Still, you state these things in the manner of what I construe to be an objectivist frame of mind. As though infinitesimally tiny specks of existence in the vastness of All There Is [you and I] could actually be privy to the one and only explanation regarding matters like this.

And, sure, you may well be. But the fact that others here dispute your definitions, meaning and logic speaks volumes regarding that yawning gap between what we think we know about God [here and now] and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate conclusively what all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

And there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of objectivists out there all clamoring to insist that their own take on God finally does pin Him down.

For example, the Real God. Right, James?
Obviously there will be disputes.
But so far there is no convincing counter from anyone against my arguments.
You meant JSS' counter based on his narrow-minded definition of 'perfect' which ignore its association with 'absolute'?

Okay, but even secular philosophers have to grapple with conflicting goods on this side of the grave. How are they not in the same boat as the rest of us?

How [for all practical purposes] are their own values [out in any particular world] not entangled in the manner in which I construe the existential interaction of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

God in my view is the only entity that all of this can be subsumed in. Other than the profound mystery that would come embedded in a wholly determined universe.
Non-theistic spiritualities do grapple with mortality but they do not venture beyond the grave to promote a soul that survive physical death with an eternal life in heaven or paradise.

God is only an idea [not even a concept] which is non-empirical. God emerges as a thought to subsume [& relieve] all the related psychological sufferings arising from an existential crisis. God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
What is worst is the idea of God as a psychological crutch is double-edged and bring along its negative baggage of terrible evils, terror and violence against non-believers.

Non-theistic spiritualities like Buddhism and others address the psychological suffering directly and deal with it on a spiritual-psychological basis. There is no consideration for what happen on the other side of the grave, e.g. eternal life in Paradise. The plus point of these spiritualities is its holy texts do not contain evil laden elements that inspire its % of evil prone believers to commit evils in the name of its founder.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:21 am

Arminius wrote:Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".
If you read the CPR carefully, you will note [read carefully] Kant concluded [not in exact] words, "God is an impossibility" within an empirical-rational reality.

Here is one clue [mine] where the idea of a God is illusory without empirical premisses;
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, 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
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:20 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".
If you read the CPR carefully, you will note [read carefully] Kant concluded [not in exact] words, "God is an impossibility" within an empirical-rational reality.

Here is one clue [mine] where the idea of a God is illusory without empirical premisses;
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, 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

????
Wow, you must have quite an imaginative bias when reading. Exactly how did you pick "impossible" out of Kant's phrasing?

Btw, are you aware that to many far more educated, "God" is (has always referred to) Logic or Reason itself? To some "God" refers to Wisdom itself (slightly different than Reason). And to some "God" has always been referring to Truth itself. To say that God is "impossible" is to say that "Logic/Reasoning, Wisdom, or Truth is impossible". In postmodern times, it is a move against using reason and truth and in favor of restoring emotionalism, magic, and mysticism. You are supporting the postmodernists, yet obviously unaware of that.
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: 25765
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:02 pm

Arminius wrote:


Now my question: Is it customary to say "human things"?


That would probably be a contradiction in terms. If some look on humans as things, then the human has been downgraded to a thing.

Just as i cannot see things as being *beings* ~~ things are not capable of love, hate, emotions, relationships, growth and maturity, except perhaps in an unconscious, evolutionary way, if the latter made sense to you.
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: 14942
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:06 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".
If you read the CPR carefully, you will note [read carefully] Kant concluded [not in exact] words, "God is an impossibility" within an empirical-rational reality.

Here is one clue [mine] where the idea of a God is illusory without empirical premisses;
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, 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

So, I am right: Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:33 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Arminius wrote:

Now my question: Is it customary to say "human things"?


That would probably be a contradiction in terms. If some look on humans as things, then the human has been downgraded to a thing.

The term "human things" comes pretty close to a contradiction.That was the reason why my question above was a more rhetorical one.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:45 am

Arminius wrote:Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".

Prismatic567 wrote:If you read the CPR carefully, you will note [read carefully] Kant concluded [not in exact] words, "God is an impossibility" within an empirical-rational reality.

Here is one clue [mine] where the idea of a God is illusory without empirical premisses;
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, 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

James S Saint wrote:????
Wow, you must have quite an imaginative bias when reading. Exactly how did you pick "impossible" out of Kant's phrasing?
Tell me, how can an illusion be real within an empirical-rational reality?? This is one of the central theme of Kant's thesis in the CPR.
This is why I know and insist your philosophical views are very narrow and shallow.

Btw, the idea of God is a transcendental illusion which is another level beyond the illusion relating to the empirical senses.
Note I spent 3 years full time researching on Kant, so I know what he is talking about. The only provision Kant opened for the possibility of God is on Moral grounds and I don't agree with that.

Btw, are you aware that to many far more educated, "God" is (has always referred to) Logic or Reason itself? To some "God" refers to Wisdom itself (slightly different than Reason). And to some "God" has always been referring to Truth itself.
To say that God is "impossible" is to say that "Logic/Reasoning, Wisdom, or Truth is impossible". In postmodern times, it is a move against using reason and truth and in favor of restoring emotionalism, magic, and mysticism. You are supporting the postmodernists, yet obviously unaware of that.
How can you claim to be more educated when you are using the the above spurious rhetoric.

It is very stupid to equate 'God' = wisdom, truth, logic or reason, then condemn those who insist God is impossible as illogical, irrational, against reason & truth and the likes.
This is the most stupidest idea I have come across in a philosophical discussion.
Show me any reasonable dictionary that equate the above to 'God'.
Wisdom, truth, logic and reason are very specific philosophical topics with their own specific definition and has no direct association with an illusory God.

Note how 'god' is used in other ways;
    -a person or thing of supreme value: had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall; ‘don't make money your god’
    -a powerful ruler: Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates

In this OP, I have explained and defined what is the idea of God is taken to be.
Note I raised the OP and it is up to me to define what is God with reference to this topic.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:59 am

Arminius wrote:So, I am right: Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".
See my reply to JSS above.

To clue you in, in the Critique of Reason, Kant raised a detailed chapter [N K Smith] regarding;

    Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason ....
    Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ... 500
    Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ...... 507
    Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
    Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
    Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason . . . . . 525

In the finality following the above, Kant presented the conclusion, the idea of God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. re B397 I quoted above. The conclusion of B397 is based on one big argument represented by the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:36 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Tell me, how can an illusion be real within an empirical-rational reality?? This is one of the central theme of Kant's thesis in the CPR.

Gees.. you err on so many levels simultaneously. First, you seem to be conflating "illusion" with "delusion". Especially in Kant's day, a "illusion" was not a necessarily incorrect imagining. An illusion was simply something that was not actually witnessed by the senses (much like most of what you believe that you read). For example, the image in your mind of a gravitational field pulling a rock toward the Earth, is an illusion. It is an illusion because you cannot actually see a gravitational field. You deduce that the field is there and then might imagine what it would look like if you could see it. As it turns out, all of Newton's forces are illusions, as well as Einstein's Relativity ontology, and especially Quantum Physics ontology.

But beyond that, merely because one has never seen a unicorn, doesn't mean that a unicorn "is impossible"

Prismatic567 wrote:This is why I know and insist your philosophical views are very narrow and shallow.

You claim that I am narrow minded because you can only see your own warped view thus maintain the illusion that if I disagree it can only be because I am incapable of seeing it too. You maintain the illusion that you are right, despite the extreme amount of rationale that everyone has posted displaying the errors in your reasoning.

ALL of what you have been posting is illusionary.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note I spent 3 years full time researching on Kant, so I know what he is talking about.

You have the illusion that such actually means anything. People study writings all of their lives and still argue view points that contradict others who have done the same. We have a number of Nietzsche worshipers at this site who quite often argue over what Nietzsche actually mean by what was said and have been doing so for some 10 years.

I couldn't care less if you spent 100 years studying Kant. When you are wrong, you are wrong.
And sense you imagine yourself such a postmodern intellectual, look up "Nullius in verba"

Prismatic567 wrote:
Btw, are you aware that to many far more educated, "God" is (has always referred to) Logic or Reason itself? To some "God" refers to Wisdom itself (slightly different than Reason). And to some "God" has always been referring to Truth itself.
To say that God is "impossible" is to say that "Logic/Reasoning, Wisdom, or Truth is impossible". In postmodern times, it is a move against using reason and truth and in favor of restoring emotionalism, magic, and mysticism. You are supporting the postmodernists, yet obviously unaware of that.

How can you claim to be more educated when you are using the the above spurious rhetoric.

Again, try to pay attention to what you read without so much presumptuous bias. I did NOT say that I am more educated. Read it again.

Prismatic567 wrote:It is very stupid to equate 'God' = wisdom, truth, logic or reason, then condemn those who insist God is impossible as illogical, irrational, against reason & truth and the likes.
This is the most stupidest idea I have come across in a philosophical discussion.

Sorry, but the claim that you just made is "stupid" and senseless, not to mention again of its ignorance.

Prismatic567 wrote:Wisdom, truth, logic and reason are very specific philosophical topics with their own specific definition and has no direct association with an illusory God.

So the hatefully, presumptuously bias and undereducated would imagine.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note how 'god' is used in other ways;
[list]-a person or thing of supreme value

So you're saying that Truth, Logic, and Wisdom have never had supreme value to anyone??? Even to those you image to have been senseless moneys?

The thought there is a Reality above and more powerful than the magic show was once a new thought.

Prismatic567 wrote:-a powerful ruler

And you don't think that Truth (aka "Reality") is not the true, supreme ruler of your universe??? You think the universe was created by and obeys lies? You believe that there is a power above Reality???

As I stated before, you are supporting the magic worshipers that you profess to be against.

Prismatic567 wrote:In this OP, I have explained and defined what is the idea of God is taken to be.

Out of ignorance, sure.

Many people have explained your ignorance to you.

You are so arrogant as to imagine yourself more clever and wise than all of them, yet cannot seem to come up with actual valid logic (or even know what it is). You have been wrong in so many ways, I can't even keep track of them.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note I raised the OP and it is up to me to define what is God with reference to this topic.

That is partially true. You have the authority to choose WHICH definition of "God" you are trying to refute. But then as a part of that, you would have to prove which claims about God were referring to your defined God verses any other. And more importantly, something you have ignored, is that your "definition" must not be ambiguous, which it is, as you have been told many times.

Your erroneous claim is that THE ONE GOD of the Bible is the one that you have ambiguously defined.

==========================

And then you continue your display of ignorance with this:
Prismatic567 wrote:To clue you in, in the Critique of Reason, Kant raised a detailed chapter [N K Smith] regarding;

Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason ....
Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ... 500
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ...... 507
Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason . . . . . 525

In every single case, Kant was stating that coming up with a PROOF was impossible. He never said that God was impossible.

Obviously you do not understand Kant.

Yet you maintain such an illusion.

And then beyond that, Kant happens to be wrong about that conclusion. Even Thomas Aquinas came up with 5 such proofs. Being clueless when it comes to logic, you wouldn't be able to argue against Aquinas either way. And there are greater proofs than those.
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: 25765
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:19 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:So, I am right: Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".
See my reply to JSS above.

To clue you in, in the Critique of Reason, Kant raised a detailed chapter [N K Smith] regarding;

    Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason ....
    Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ... 500
    Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ...... 507
    Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
    Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
    Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason . . . . . 525

In the finality following the above, Kant presented the conclusion, the idea of God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. re B397 I quoted above. The conclusion of B397 is based on one big argument represented by the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason.

The statement "God is an impossibility" (Prismatic 567) and the statement "The Impossibility of an Ontological (or Cosmological or Trancendental or Physico-theological) Proof of the Existence of God" (Kant) are different statements. You believe that the fact that Kant and you used the word "imposibility" proves the impossibility of God? You are wrong. Note that Kant meant "the proof of God" and that you mean "God" (God himself). Linguistically said: In Kant's sentence, the object is "proof" (whereas "God" is merely the second gentive object, thus: not the object itself); in your sentence, the object is "God". "Proof of God is impossible" does not mean "God is impossible".

So again:

Kant did not say "God is impossible".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:31 pm

Arminius wrote:Kant did not say "God is an impossibilty".


Kant presumably said what he thought was true. But how was he able to demonstrate that what he thought was true about God is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn?

It would seem to come down to this: that there is what we can grasp/know a priori and what we can grasp/know a posteriori. And then, out in the world with others, how the two are intertwined in any particular discussion of a God, the God, my God.

As the Objectivists suggest: "God is not a concept created from perception."

And:

"The basic idea behind a priori knowledge is that comes without experience, without specifying what the source is. However, Kant took this further, and said that a priori knowledge has a "transcendental" source -- based on the form of objects, rather than our experience of them."

Platonic "forms"?

Not quite, right?

But what then? Kant posits this transcending font as an intellectual contraption that seems necessary in order to motivate folks to always tell the truth when the "inquiring murderer" comes around.

Without God [and the immortality/salvation linked to Him] why would anyone truthfully inform the murderer where his/her victim is?

Unless perhaps it is perceived [in any particular context] to be in your own best interest that the murderer succeed in killing the victim.

For example if the murderer insisted that unless the location was disclosed he/she would kill you too.

In other words, for mere mortals, in a world where it is presumed [by some] that God does not exist, it all comes down to subjective points of view, conflicting goods, and those who have the power to attain and then to sustain a particular set of behaviors.
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: 22637
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:35 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: All truths are circumscribed within the parameters of a specific framework of principles, definitions, meanings, assumptions etc.
If it is a personal, then it is subjective and has minimal credibility until it is shared and agreed by many.


As a general description of "how things work", probably. But there is still the part where our conception of God becomes intertwined in our actual perceptions of the world around us. Perceptions embedded in turn in the existential trajectory that encompasses/embodies our own personal experiences. Such that the definitions and the meaning that we give to the words used in our argument/analysis [regarding God] are fleshed out: intellectual contraptions able to be verified or falsified empirically, phenomenally.

Something that all agree on regarding God is a consensus. But that is not necessarily the same thing as an objective fact true for all of us.

Prismatic567 wrote: The ultimate idea of God as an absolutely perfect God is inferred from various terms and definition of God is not mine but claimed by the majority of theists, i.e. 5.4 out of all 7+ billion people. As such my inference has a credible basis.

Based on the above, I have supported with detailed arguments why such a God is an impossibility.


But "such a God" is still basically one that is defined or deduced into existence. Which is not the same as demonstrating that in fact God is an impossibility. We just don't/won't know that until a frame of mind can be concocted wholy in sync with whatever a priori and a posteriori truth/reality actually is.

In the interim we all take own own leap of faith to one or another set of assumptions.

Prismatic567 wrote:Obviously there will be disputes.
But so far there is no convincing counter from anyone against my arguments.
You meant JSS' counter based on his narrow-minded definition of 'perfect' which ignore its association with 'absolute'?


The distinction I make here, though, is between those who embrace what I construe to be an objectivist frame of mind and those who don't. In other words, the extent to which someone encompasses an argument about God that seems to revolve entirely around the assumption that unless others share it they are necessarily wrong. Why? Because the objectivists insist that their own arguments are necessarily right.

But right how?

By definition? Based of a set of premises, precipitating a particular meaning [conclusion] presumed to the necessarily true? Where is the part where the words can be wholly integrated into a world that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.

Sooner or later words like "absolute" and "perfect" either define or describe a God able to be encompassed empirically, or they don't.

Okay, but even secular philosophers have to grapple with conflicting goods on this side of the grave. How are they not in the same boat as the rest of us?

How [for all practical purposes] are their own values [out in any particular world] not entangled in the manner in which I construe the existential interaction of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

God in my view is the only entity that all of this can be subsumed in. Other than the profound mystery that would come embedded in a wholly determined universe.


Prismatic567 wrote: Non-theistic spiritualities do grapple with mortality but they do not venture beyond the grave to promote a soul that survive physical death with an eternal life in heaven or paradise.


Okay, but how do they grapple with morality in a world where it is presumed that there is no immortality and salvation? A world in which right and wrong are clearly emboddied historically, culturally and experientially?

How [in a world sans God] are they able to interact with others and not tumble down into this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

From my own frame of mind, this is no less applicable to the practitioners of Eastern philosophies.

Prismatic567 wrote: God is only an idea [not even a concept] which is non-empirical. God emerges as a thought to subsume [& relieve] all the related psychological sufferings arising from an existential crisis. God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.


I agree. But this doesn't make the horror of extinction or an essentially absurd and meaningless world any less daunting for the No God folks.

And, given that, I don't expect that God and religion will ever wither away entirely. Or not even for the majority of actual flesh and blood human beings.
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: 22637
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Kant did NOT (!) say "God is an Impossibility"

Postby Arminius » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:50 am

Subjectivists are those who insist that their own arguments are necessarily right. The word "own" already stands for this. Additionaly, subjectivists have more reasons to insist that their own arguments are necessarily right, because they lack objectivity, at least always more than objectivists lack subjectivity. It is not difficult to be a subjectivist, it is more difficult to be an objectivist. Objectivists consider the objects before considering their own emotions and other endogenous affects - that is difficult enough and probably not completely possible. Subjectivists do just the opposite - that is not difficult, although probably not completely possible either.

There are nonetheless many people who state to be, but are not objectivists. So, I am not talking about those alleged objectivists here. Most people are subjectivists, regardless whether they know it or not.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:58 am

James S Saint wrote:And then you continue your display of ignorance with this:
Prismatic567 wrote:To clue you in, in the Critique of Reason, Kant raised a detailed chapter [N K Smith] regarding;

Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason ....
Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ... 500
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ...... 507
Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason . . . . . 525

In every single case, Kant was stating that coming up with a PROOF was impossible. He never said that God was impossible.

Obviously you do not understand Kant.

Yet you maintain such an illusion.

And then beyond that, Kant happens to be wrong about that conclusion. Even Thomas Aquinas came up with 5 such proofs. Being clueless when it comes to logic, you wouldn't be able to argue against Aquinas either way. And there are greater proofs than those.
You are off track in all your replies, I will not waste time on all of them.
One clear example is the above,

Note I did not claim the above use of "impossibility" by Kant in those sections is translated to Kant proving God's existence is an impossibility.

Note I begin the point with;
"To clue you in..."

I give you another clue re Kant stating the idea of God is an illusion, thus cannot be real within empirical-rational reality. Kant sense of 'illusion' in this case refer to 'a transcendental illusion' and not as empirical illusion.
In all cases whether it is an empirical or transcendental illusion, such illusions cannot be real within empirical-rational reality.
You have to have a thorough understanding of Kant's CPR to know how Kant's conclusion is God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

It is advised by many who are in the know, to understand Kant reasonably one has to spent at least 3 years full time [this is what I did] or 5 years part time researching and reading Kant. From what you have posted of Kant, I don't see you have understood Kant's philosophy and thus your critiques and counter are really baseless and has no credibility to say Kant is wrong.

What don't you read up Kant's point [at least 3 years full time] and provide your counters to them?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:52 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: All truths are circumscribed within the parameters of a specific framework of principles, definitions, meanings, assumptions etc.
If it is a personal, then it is subjective and has minimal credibility until it is shared and agreed by many.


As a general description of "how things work", probably. But there is still the part where our conception of God becomes intertwined in our actual perceptions of the world around us. Perceptions embedded in turn in the existential trajectory that encompasses/embodies our own personal experiences. Such that the definitions and the meaning that we give to the words used in our argument/analysis [regarding God] are fleshed out: intellectual contraptions able to be verified or falsified empirically, phenomenally.

Something that all agree on regarding God is a consensus. But that is not necessarily the same thing as an objective fact true for all of us.
All truths = means ALL regardless of
"how things work" or otherwise.
Thus to assess the "truthfulness" of any conclusion we must assess the reliability of the elements and basis of the specific Framework.
For example, it is obvious scientific truths has high objectivity and credibility because of its Framework [with its assumption] and openness to verification, repeatable testing by anyone and producing consistent conclusion subject to its framework.

The claims of God's existence has consensus of the majority [90% of humans] but the framework it relied upon is loose [not like the one from science] and not credible, i.e. cannot be empirically tested and verified, and I have extended to prove it is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Prismatic567 wrote: The ultimate idea of God as an absolutely perfect God is inferred from various terms and definition of God is not mine but claimed by the majority of theists, i.e. 5.4 out of all 7+ billion people. As such my inference has a credible basis.

Based on the above, I have supported with detailed arguments why such a God is an impossibility.


But "such a God" is still basically one that is defined or deduced into existence. Which is not the same as demonstrating that in fact God is an impossibility. We just don't/won't know that until a frame of mind can be concocted wholy in sync with whatever a priori and a posteriori truth/reality actually is.

In the interim we all take own own leap of faith to one or another set of assumptions.
Yes God is actually 'abduced' not deduced into existence based on primitive* reason [instinctual] rather than based on the higher cortical faculty of reason. * Most higher animals would use such low level instinctual reason.
I have proven when such a reasoned God is cornered it will end up as an absolutely perfect God which is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

I have stated the actual grounds and basis for the emergence of a God is due to psychological reason driven by an existential crisis. The problem is most theists are ignorant of this and rather would be driven to look outside themselves as they have been relying for psychological security from external parents, so by habits and customs, an external God [Hume's constant conjunction].

Prismatic567 wrote:Obviously there will be disputes.
But so far there is no convincing counter from anyone against my arguments.
You meant JSS' counter based on his narrow-minded definition of 'perfect' which ignore its association with 'absolute'?


The distinction I make here, though, is between those who embrace what I construe to be an objectivist frame of mind and those who don't. In other words, the extent to which someone encompasses an argument about God that seems to revolve entirely around the assumption that unless others share it they are necessarily wrong. Why? Because the objectivists insist that their own arguments are necessarily right.

But right how?

By definition? Based of a set of premises, precipitating a particular meaning [conclusion] presumed to the necessarily true? Where is the part where the words can be wholly integrated into a world that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.

Sooner or later words like "absolute" and "perfect" either define or describe a God able to be encompassed empirically, or they don't.
Not sure of the above.
As stated earlier, whatever is claimed to be right or true must be qualified to the framework they relied upon. As for the 'objectivists' I note they have questionable assumptions within their framework.

Okay, but how do they grapple with morality in a world where it is presumed that there is no immortality and salvation? A world in which right and wrong are clearly emboddied historically, culturally and experientially?

How [in a world sans God] are they able to interact with others and not tumble down into this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

From my own frame of mind, this is no less applicable to the practitioners of Eastern philosophies.
DNA wise, the drive for morality is inherent in all humans.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/


Religions do promote Morality & Ethics, that is one pro but it is only a very limited one.
The problem is the Abrahamic religions froze whatever ideas of morality in immutable holy books from God and thus stop it from its natural development to cope with inevitable changes within humanity and reality.

Since there is an inherent drive for Morality & Ethics within humans, the non-religious are improving and making progress on Morality naturally to cope with change.
The drive for Morality & Ethics are represented by real neurons and its relevant neural circuits within the brain. There is no way immutable holy verses can stop its progress.

One example is slavery. The Abrahamic religion implicitly condone and promote slavery and this is based on immutable verses from God which cannot be changed eternally.
OTOH, the secular authorities has banned slavery all over the World with serious penalties for non-compliance. No doubt some people will still practice slavery illegally but at least humanity has something legal to work towards the elimination of slavery.
This is one pro [advancing] over religions.

As far as Morality is concern it is stagnant in the dirty immutable pools of theism but Morality unchained will progress within secularism.

Prismatic567 wrote: God is only an idea [not even a concept] which is non-empirical. God emerges as a thought to subsume [& relieve] all the related psychological sufferings arising from an existential crisis. God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.


I agree. But this doesn't make the horror of extinction or an essentially absurd and meaningless world any less daunting for the No God folks.

And, given that, I don't expect that God and religion will ever wither away entirely. Or not even for the majority of actual flesh and blood human beings.
I agree theism [at present, not future] is a critical necessity for the majority to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Therefore I will not advocate the elimination of theism at present nor the very near future.
But given the evidence that the cons of theism* are progressing toward outweighing its cons, humanity must strive at the present to embark on a project to wean off [voluntarily] and replace theism expeditiously with foolproof alternatives to deal with that same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
* from the Abrahamic religions especially Islam which has moral support from theism in general.

The Eastern non-theistic religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, etc] are already resolving that same existential crisis without any evil baggage, so it is possible to wean off theism in the future or ASAP.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:02 am

Your new scape-goat now is "Within Empirical-Rational Reality".
:lol:

Got news forya:
James S Saint wrote:And there is only one "REALITY". It is certainly rational in the sense of being logical, but "empirical" is a subjective issue. To be empirical means that it can be seen, and certainly not all of reality can be seen.
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: 25765
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:58 pm

Arminius wrote: Subjectivists ar[e] those who insist that their own arguments are necessarily right. The word "own" already stands for this.


Here of course we can get into the entirely technical discussion between epistemologists regarding precisely what it means to distinguish subjective from objective. Indeed, in a wholly determined universe the distinction would seem to be an illusion. The trick of a mind convinced that "I" is actually able to make these distinctions autonomously on threads like this.

Me, I draw the line between those things that we think we know and those things we are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to know in turn. Something is true objectively to the extent that we can determine that it is true for all of us.

But: only to the extent that we can accomplish this given the gap between what any particular one of us think we know here and now and all that would need to be known in order to encompass [ontologically] What Existence Is. And then [teleologically] Why It Is What It Is.

Does existence serve some purpose?

God's, perhaps?

Instead, all too often these rather ponderous discussions revolve more around an exchange of "general descriptions" like this one:

Arminius wrote: Additionaly, subjectivists have more reasons to insist that their own arguments are necessarily right, because they lack objectivity, at least always more than objectivists lack subjectivity. It is not difficult to be a subjectivist, it is more difficult to be an objectivist. Objectivists consider the objects before considering their own emotions and other endogenous affects - that is difficult enough and probably not completely possible. Subjectivists do just the opposite - that is not difficult, although probably not completely possible either.

There are nonetheless many people who state to be, but are not objectivists. So, I am not talking about those alleged objectivists here. Most people are subjectivists, regardless whether they know it or not.


What on earth are we to make of this?! Describe a particular context in which flesh and blood human beings interact and note these distinctions with respect to actual behaviors. Behaviors seemingly rooted in the either/or world [true essentially for all of us] and then our reaction to those behaviors as this becomes embodied/entangled in the is/ought world [true existentially from a particular point of view].
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: 22637
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:59 pm

Me, I draw the line between those things that we think we know and those things we are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to know in turn. Something is true objectively to the extent that we can determine that it is true for all of us.


Liberals do not qualify as rational so many people will be excluded for liberals live subjectively in their heads disregarding the surrounding objective reality that is shared by all.

Natural/known by all rational men and women...heterosexuality is normal (90% of the population), homosexuality is abnormal (10% of the population), beastiality is more abnormal (8% of the population), pedophilia is even more abnormal (3% of the population), transexualism is even more abnormal (1% of the population).

Abnormal-Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.

A deviant is someone whose behavior falls far outside of societies norms. Liberals are deviants who support other deviants (homosexuals and transexuals currently) and promote deviant behaviors (homosexuality and transexuality).

Crap...off topic. What to say about God? God is more real, more possible than a liberal. :evilfun:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6324
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:29 am

WendyDarling wrote:
Me, I draw the line between those things that we think we know and those things we are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to know in turn. Something is true objectively to the extent that we can determine that it is true for all of us.


Liberals do not qualify as rational so many people will be excluded for liberals live subjectively in their heads disregarding the surrounding objective reality that is shared by all.

Natural/known by all rational men and women...heterosexuality is normal (90% of the population), homosexuality is abnormal (10% of the population), beastiality is more abnormal (8% of the population), pedophilia is even more abnormal (3% of the population), transexualism is even more abnormal (1% of the population).

Abnormal-Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.

A deviant is someone whose behavior falls far outside of societies norms. Liberals are deviants who support other deviants (homosexuals and transexuals currently) and promote deviant behaviors (homosexuality and transexuality).

Crap...off topic. What to say about God? God is more real, more possible than a liberal. :evilfun:

That is one of more possible reasons why "liberals" believe that God is "impossible" (Prismatic 567) or at least less possible than they themselves are: they are less possible than God, and as "liberal" god(wannabe)s they do not tolerate God besides them. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:35 am

James S Saint wrote:Your new scape-goat now is "Within Empirical-Rational Reality".
:lol:

Got news forya:
James S Saint wrote:And there is only one "REALITY". It is certainly rational in the sense of being logical, but "empirical" is a subjective issue. To be empirical means that it can be seen, and certainly not all of reality can be seen.
Again you missed my point!
As I had asserted, your philosophical views are too narrow and shallow.

I wonder you understand Kant's 'woken up from dogmatic slumber by Hume'. Before Kant there was the serious position of the dichotomy between empiricism versus rationalism [the twain will never meet]. Kant reconciled the differences and demonstrated both need to work in complementarity with each other to understand reality. This give rise to the philosophical view of the Empirical-Rationality Reality.

Empirical-Rationality Reality is the interpretation of reality based on the empirical [Science, etc.] and complemented by philosophical [logic, wisdom, and all relevant tools] thoughts.
The empirical element in Science is cannot be strong credibility for knowledge, it has to be complemented with rational elements of a framework [Scientific Method, assumptions, peer review, etc.] that is philosophical.
To understand reality per-se humanity need to understand its imperative and inevitable empirical based to be complemented with Philosophy-proper [as defined].

With the idealized God, it is void of any empirical element to start with and thus is moot and a non-starter for consideration whether it is real [empirical-rational] or not.

Let me clue you in re Russell in History of Western Philosophy, where he presented a realistic view of reality where empiricism [e.g. Science] merges with the rationality of philosophy rather than the dogma of certainty from theology;

Bertrand Russell wrote:Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogmas as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides, and this No Man’s Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries.

Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or it is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving towards death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly?

To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.



And there is only one "REALITY".
What kind of philosophical view is that?
An absolute perfect one Reality is an impossibility.

but "empirical" is a subjective issue.
What??
So what is 'objective'?
'Objective' is none other than intersubjective consensus based on empirical evidence.
Do you agree accepted 'Scientific Theories' are objective, i.e. can be repeated tested by any one and arriving at the same conclusion.

I can guess, your sense of objective are those Plato's Forms, the theistic God that exist independent of human conditions which can never be proven to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users