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 Meno_ » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:24 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
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'll try to re-iterate in other words. To my mind science is not fundamentally creative.Let me explain. All phenomena is ever present, if does not take perception to validate it, the sense is a development to receive signals, that then are interpreted.

Science merely simulates by analysis of what's already there.
Ontology is a late development, after the pre conscious made the leap to the existential choice by using acceptabce/rejection as a survival mechanism. Ontology, or The basic logic of exclusion by contradiction has the above sourced dynamic characteristics.

Now the point is, that God in essence, therefore, is not merely a conceptual ontological product. but a staged effect of an existential dynamics, a primordial base of freedom anchored in the choice between acceptance and rejection.
I can elaborate on this kater, but depressing here would needlessly cloud the issue at hand.

So the argument You bring forward about the exclusive ontologocally psychological defense, fails on the face of it.

But bow that, the dynamic God, in terms of an evolving creature, even if, it uses the existential means of survival, developing out of the ontological presumption for god, does so go further and progresses out of the dilemma of logical formalism into the dialectic between the synthetic notion of a middle, an exclusion between necessity as holding, accepting a situation, or rejecting it. Whatever the derive substance in that middle ground, it is the part of and the result of the underlying existential dilemma, which presents to man a signification of conceptual shortcuts, which help him decide what action to choose

Conception has ground, it is not merely an accidentally acquired thought process , but on pre existing conditional prescriptions.ater developing into categorical assumptions, most particularly noticeable with Immanual Kant.
Ideas are sown together and channelled into intricate webs of what comes to be known as knowledge


So God was not a creation of Man, God was a living idea realized by man.Whatever God is interpreted to be, It is not an analysis and a formal body of classification and simulation, which science is, but It is a Creator of adaptative tools to signify and enrich thought processes about the way man can adapt and overcome the obstacles ofife.

That God is much more than that, in fact He is the creator, the agent behind consciousness, I have no doubt.

In the beginning was the word, and that word to become living had to have an agemcy, whereby the agent can become aware of it, and thereby gaining the understanding of who man is, his purpose and his likeness in His image.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3680
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:02 am

Meno wrote:
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.

All phenomena is ever present, if does not take perception to validate it, the sense is a development to receive signals, that then are interpreted.
I believe [philosophically] you got it wrong here.
Your philosophical stance here is Philosophical Realism.

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I agree with the theories of Philosophical Anti-Realism, i,e, Philosophical Realism is not tenable, there are no thing-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
It is quite a long story to argue on this issue but your views here are not tenable.

Science merely simulates by analysis of what's already there.
Ontology is a late development, after the pre conscious made the leap to the existential choice by using acceptabce/rejection as a survival mechanism. Ontology, or The basic logic of exclusion by contradiction has the above sourced dynamic characteristics.

Now the point is, that God in essence, therefore, is not merely a conceptual ontological product. but a staged effect of an existential dynamics, a primordial base of freedom anchored in the choice between acceptance and rejection.
I can elaborate on this kater, but depressing here would needlessly cloud the issue at hand.

So the argument You bring forward about the exclusive ontologocally psychological defense, fails on the face of it.
I had argued,

Me:The only valid reason and usefulness of 'God exists' is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.

No matter how you argue, you need to prove God exists in reality.
You have not done that at all but merely making statements, producing no arguments and merely wishing God exists.

Have you ever consider the psychological reasons why you need and must believe in a God?
For a theist is not easy to look at alternative approaches as it can be very painful to deliberate on that 'divorce' from theism. But for philosophical sake, it is wiser to learn of other alternatives to deal with that inherent existential crisis.
As a guide, note the philosophies of Buddhism which adopts a psychological approach to deal with that inherent existential crisis.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:53 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Me:The only valid reason and usefulness of 'God exists' is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.

Not that you care, but that is not true.
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 » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:23 pm

When a person repeatedly responds with the same stock phrases, then he is not open to rethinking his position. He's not even listening.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:32 pm

phyllo wrote:When a person repeatedly responds with the same stock phrases, then he is not open to rethinking his position. He's not even listening.


Sure, and, up to a point, that's true of all of us.

Now, why don't you apprise us of all the particular changes that you went through in regard to the existence of God. How have your own assessments evolved over the years?

And, to the extent that you are able, make a distinction between your philosophical/theological assumptions and the actual experiences that you had that nudged you existentially in different directions over time.

Maybe on a brand new thread.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27409
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:50 pm

Now, why don't you apprise us of all the particular changes that you went through in regard to the existence of God. How have your own assessments evolved over the years?
What would that achieve besides entertaining you?
And, to the extent that you are able, make a distinction between your philosophical/theological assumptions and the actual experiences that you had that nudged you existentially in different directions over time.
Every time that I write something, you respond that you don't know how it addresses your points or you don't understand what I am saying. I have no idea what you want or expect from me. That much I will admit.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:22 pm

phyllo wrote:
Now, why don't you apprise us of all the particular changes that you went through in regard to the existence of God. How have your own assessments evolved over the years?
What would that achieve besides entertaining you?


You make the accusation that others are not open to new thinking in regard to the existence of God. Okay, how is that not applicable to you in turn? How have your views changed over the years?

And, to the extent that you are able, make a distinction between your philosophical/theological assumptions and the actual experiences that you had that nudged you existentially in different directions over time.


phyllo wrote:Every time that I write something, you respond that you don't know how it addresses your points or you don't understand what I am saying. I have no idea what you want or expect from me. That much I will admit.


Cite particular instances of this.

And, here and now, note the evolution of your thinking [and repeated rethinking] about God and I will respond to it.

Let others judge for themselves the extent to which you have eschewed the "same stock phrases" in addressing this subject.

Who have you listened to in the past --- folks able to reconfigure your thinking?

I can name at least a half dozen men and women [in particular circumstances] who had a profound impact on my own thinking.

And my thinking has indeed evolved dramatically over the years. As you recall, I was once myself a devout Christian and a Unitarian.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27409
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:36 pm

I'm not going to answer your questions.

I'm not going to cite anything for you.

I'm not going to note anything for you.

I'm not going to discuss anything with you.

Period.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:23 pm

I again need to denote the need to define Who or what God/God is. If God is a plenum of overreaching absolute, a Nietzchean anti overcoming then, God is necessary for Man's consciousness, in the manner in which he needs self consciousness .to evolve . This is pantheism, and in this sense, men need God for support of belief.

Defining God precedes the argument for his/it's existence.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3680
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:46 pm

There are big differences between:

We have discovered something and let's describe it.

and

Let's define something and try to show that it logically exists. Or. Let's define something and try to show that it logically does not exist.

and

Let's define something and try to empirically find it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:50 pm

phyllo wrote:I'm not going to answer your questions.

I'm not going to cite anything for you.

I'm not going to note anything for you.

I'm not going to discuss anything with you.

Period.


Note to others:

Make of this what you will.

Note to God:

What should we make of this?

:wink:
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27409
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:54 pm

Note to others:

Make of this what you will.

Note to God:

What should we make of this?

:wink:
Simple enough.

You jerked me around once too often.

But feel free to interpret it in any way that you want.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:07 pm

phyllo wrote:
Note to others:

Make of this what you will.

Note to God:

What should we make of this?

:wink:
Simple enough.

You jerked me around once too often.


On the contrary, as with others, I am always willing to discuss God and religion "straight up": an open and honest exchange of opinions between folks who respect each other's intelligence.

And I certainly respect yours.

But I am also willing and able [sometimes eagerly] to exchange polemics. Yet even here I never lose sight of your obvious intellect.

phyllo wrote: But feel free to interpret it in any way that you want.


My entire point however is that, with respect to value judgments, this is the only manner in which we can interpret such conflicting assessments. As embodied in dasein.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27409
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:15 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Me:The only valid reason and usefulness of 'God exists' is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.

Not that you care, but that is not true.
Why not true? You are jumping to conclusion based on ignorance of the central driver of the major religions.

There are secondary reasons [political, social, cultural, etc.] for theism and religions, but if you are familiar with the doctrines of the major religions, the central theme of concern to the individual is the fear of what will happen after death, thus the hope of the afterlife as a reward from God or other means. These are driven by psychological existential elements within the psyche of believers.

Even Buddhism which is not theistic, its central theme concern the mother of all sufferings, i.e. the fears arising from the fact of mortality [the 'corpse' in the Buddha Story]. Some Buddhists believe in rebirth.
In Hinduism there is transmigration and reincarnation into other bodies after death.

Show me if there are more critical themes than the matter of death and the afterlife in theism and other religions.

As for theistic religions [especially Islam and other Abrahamic religions] I am bothered by SOME of its believer who are evil prone and are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence [evidence of this glaring].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:17 am

phyllo wrote:When a person repeatedly responds with the same stock phrases, then he is not open to rethinking his position. He's not even listening.
Don't blame others if your arguments are not sound nor convincing in relation to the OP.

I am still waiting for any one to prove my premises and whole argument wrong. I will welcome it as it will enable me to improve on it.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:53 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Me:The only valid reason and usefulness of 'God exists' is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.

Not that you care, but that is not true.
Why not true? You are jumping to conclusion based on ignorance of the central driver of the major religions.

There are secondary reasons [political, social, cultural, etc.] for theism and religions, but if you are familiar with the doctrines of the major religions, the central theme of concern to the individual is the fear of what will happen after death, thus the hope of the afterlife as a reward from God or other means. These are driven by psychological existential elements within the psyche of believers.

Even Buddhism which is not theistic, its central theme concern the mother of all sufferings, i.e. the fears arising from the fact of mortality [the 'corpse' in the Buddha Story]. Some Buddhists believe in rebirth.
In Hinduism there is transmigration and reincarnation into other bodies after death.

Show me if there are more critical themes than the matter of death and the afterlife in theism and other religions.

As for theistic religions [especially Islam and other Abrahamic religions] I am bothered by SOME of its believer who are evil prone and are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence [evidence of this glaring].

I realize that you cannot see how excessively naive you are concerning religions. Obviously you have no idea of the "central driver of the major religions". And as long as you maintain your hatred, you will never see anything but the presumptuous evil that you paint of them for yourself and others. Out of your fear and hate, you have constructed a tunnel for your vision, thus will remain blind regardless of what anyone says. You have proven that on this thread as well as many others.

You are merely a religious preacher of your hatred (commonly referred to as a "troll").

The "central driver of the major religions" is to maintain a social order even before there were, when there are no, and beyond the use of armies to maintain social laws. They are to prevent social chaos at the most fundamental level. They have proven themselves in that regard. And with that at heart, any and all concerns of people are blended into the soup that you so hatefully spit out. You give the impression of being no more than a young, naive recalcitrant child who has been inspired to hate his parents, completely unaware of the underlying reality that has kept you alive.
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 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:27 pm

The "central driver of the major religions" is to maintain a social order even before there were, when there are no, and beyond the use of armies to maintain social laws. They are to prevent social chaos at the most fundamental level.
Religions serve a purpose, fulfill a function ... call it what you want.

But is the religion based on a fabricated God or a discovered God?

Is it possible to fabricate God and "fool most of the people most of the time"? If so, then that means most people want to accept a falsehood. Yet evolutionary survival requires an embrace of objective reality ... those who based their lives on illusion must have died in greater proportion than those who had few illusions. Pursuit of truth must be an evolved trait.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:54 pm

My entire point however is that, with respect to value judgments, this is the only manner in which we can interpret such conflicting assessments. As embodied in dasein.
Maybe moving away from the personal "I" is the way go.

If I am not who I am, how might I see things?

Someone has to tell me what he/she sees. I have to listen to that unique person. Then I can find the common "I" - the transcending "I".
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:49 pm

phyllo wrote:
My entire point however is that, with respect to value judgments, this is the only manner in which we can interpret such conflicting assessments. As embodied in dasein.
Maybe moving away from the personal "I" is the way go.


And how would one go about that? You either are or are not born into a particular historical/cultural/experiential context. You either are or are not indoctrinated as a child to construe God and religion in a particular way. You either had or did not have a particular set of experiences, relationships, sources of information/knowledge etc., embedded/embodied in "I".

And that has always been my point. Once you recognize the existential parameters of "I" here, you can set about to the best of your ability to establish what all reasonable men and women are in fact obligated to believe about God and religion instead.

And I'm always the first to acknowledge that this may will be something that can be accomplished. But, in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, you would seem unable to entirely preclude sets of circumstances that might nudge "I" in different [conflicting] directions. If only from the cradle to the grave.

Instead, what would need to be established empirically/materially/phenomenally is the existence of God such that the variables I speak of are rendered moot. In other words, a God able to render "I" moot. A god able to subsume any common "I" there might be.

That extant God able at last to connect the dots between the behaviors that we choose on this side of grave and our fate on the other side of it.

Again, the rest is faith. An existential leap to God. Or a "bet" on God.

Still, in a philosophy forum, the quest is always to go beyond that. To grope and to grapple with ways in which to reach God using the tools at the philosopher's disposal.

Or to acknowledge that may not even be possible. We just don't know what is true here. We only know that oblivion is out there somewhere...waiting for us around one or another corner.

Then what?

Then maybe God and religion are things that we invent in order to comfort and console ourselves when confronted with "I" leaning over into the abyss that is nothingness for all of eternity.

I would like to believe in God myself.

And, here and now, I suspect the "scorn" that may occasionally filter into my reaction to those who already do revolves psychologically around a resentment that they are comforted and consoled and I am not.

And, with respect to this frame of mind, whether God does in fact exist or not is [ironically enough] immaterial.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27409
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:13 pm

Instead, what would need to be established empirically/materially/phenomenally is the existence of God such that the variables I speak of are rendered moot. In other words, a God able to render "I" moot. A god able to subsume any common "I" there might be.
There. Right there.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Jakob » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:20 am

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

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

    1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection

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

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

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

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

Can any theists counter the above?


My Gods aren't so pretentious as to claim having created the Universe.
Perfection is simple: gold.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:21 am

James S Saint wrote:I realize that you cannot see how excessively naive you are concerning religions. Obviously you have no idea of the "central driver of the major religions". And as long as you maintain your hatred, you will never see anything but the presumptuous evil that you paint of them for yourself and others. Out of your fear and hate, you have constructed a tunnel for your vision, thus will remain blind regardless of what anyone says. You have proven that on this thread as well as many others.

You are merely a religious preacher of your hatred (commonly referred to as a "troll").

The "central driver of the major religions" is to maintain a social order even before there were, when there are no, and beyond the use of armies to maintain social laws. They are to prevent social chaos at the most fundamental level. They have proven themselves in that regard. And with that at heart, any and all concerns of people are blended into the soup that you so hatefully spit out. You give the impression of being no more than a young, naive recalcitrant child who has been inspired to hate his parents, completely unaware of the underlying reality that has kept you alive.

As usual, your views are very ignorant and resorting to childish attacks.

You are basing on your familiarity with the Catholic Church, Church of England and other sects where their focus is apparently on the social order. However, note the trend in Christianity [& Buddhism, Hinduism, even Islam] where believers are moving away from organized religions to personal interaction with their God.

Prove to me the "central driver of the major religions" is to maintain a social order.
How is the 'Buddha Story' and the central theme of 'dukkha' [commonly translated as 'suffering'] related to 'maintain a social order'?

The central theme of the original primitive religions which emerged out an existential crisis is retained in the major religions.

The 'social order' element came about later and subsequently was exploited by politician theologians.

Btw, 'social order' as a concept is independent of religions. It is an evolved instinctual* impulse that inherent in the evolution of humanity and this social order can be maintain by culture, politics, terrorism, fear, various elements of strength/power, etc. Religion is merely exploited by some to impose social order via politics or cultural elements.
* note how social order is maintain the some animals and the primates.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:25 am

Jakob wrote:My Gods aren't so pretentious as to claim having created the Universe.
Perfection is simple: gold.
Then your God is inferior to another God who is all powerful with an ability to create the Universe.
If your God is an inferior and 'cheapskate' god [like Zeus, Thor, Neptune or the monkey God -Hanuman] I am not too concern about it.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Jakob » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:38 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Jakob wrote:My Gods aren't so pretentious as to claim having created the Universe.
Perfection is simple: gold.
Then your God is inferior to another God who is all powerful with an ability to create the Universe.
If your God is an inferior and 'cheapskate' god [like Zeus, Thor, Neptune or the monkey God -Hanuman] I am not too concern about it.

You, an asthmatic cough of dust, speak of Odin?

Image

That you are as poor of spirit as to worship the void in your heart, doesn't mean the universe is as empty as it makes you feel.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:18 pm

phyllo wrote:
Instead, what would need to be established empirically/materially/phenomenally is the existence of God such that the variables I speak of are rendered moot. In other words, a God able to render "I" moot. A god able to subsume any common "I" there might be.
There. Right there.


There...where?

What makes faith in God a very definite possibility for many -- "in their heads" -- is that His existence -- there -- enables them to believe as well that not only is there life after death, but that they will be judged by God as deserving of salvation, as being privy [at last] to God's divine wisdom...to His divine justice.

After all, what is the wait for God's "second coming" [in Christianity] but an affirmation that He will have established Himself empirically, materially, phenomenally.

In the interim, however, comfort and consolation can only be derived from defining [arguing, analyzing] God into existence; or from personal experiences that convince some but are unable to be conveyed to others [like me]; or from one or another rendition of deism.

But, still, that can only be my own "existential contraption". I clearly have to acknowledge the gap between what I think I know about God "here and now", and all that would need to be known in order to understand Him fully, wholly: logically, epistemologically, ontologically, teleologically, deontologically etc.

Just like you.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27409
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron