God is an Impossibility

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:16 pm

dan25 wrote:What exactly is "empirical-rational reality"?
Does it differ from actual reality, if so how?

I suspect what he means is, "whatever scientists (or rather their media outlet) tell us to believe", but he didn't want to say or admit to that. His religion Secularism (which abhors and denies the fact that it is a religion), so he divides thought into "our righteous rational elite thoughts" and "your superstitious irrational foolish thoughts". And if you don't agree with him then you obviously belong in the second group (along with the rest of the world).
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 Anomaly654 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:19 pm

Something that is purely in thoughts only or contradictory like a square-circle is impossible to be imagined.

What is “purely in thought” supposed to mean? Is conceptualization empirically possible or “purely in thought”? Please define the term.

You have the square-circle idea right. The mind comprehends “square” and “circle” because both offer information to perception, but the mind slams shut when the two are put together. You need to define “purely in thoughts” such that it can be proven to belong in the same category as impossible things.

Conceptualization or concept passes the first step for possessing existence of some sort; it imparts information/meaning to minds. We can easily prove that you're correct that impossibilities can't be imagined by the glaring fact that impossibilities have no possibility of being discussed objectively. A square circle imparts no information or meaning. God on the other hand--like conceptualization or justice--though they're abstractions, quite obviously all do impart information to minds. From an informational standpoint all three offer this common evidence of their existence. All three can be discussed objectively because they have informational structure. It appears you've exerted considerable effort just in this thread (and how many others?) discussing the very thing you lump into the category of impossibilities, blatantly contradicting and disproving your own words.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:15 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: As I had stated Kant's Morality and Ethics System targets to increase simultaneously the MQ [Moral Intelligence] of the average human 100 time greater than the current average.

As such there should be a project of humanity that addresses ALL evils from the whole spectrum of humanity including religious-based evil I had been discussing here. This will include addressing the problematic sociopaths, and others who are evil prone.

All humans will in the future co-operate based on good shared values naturally and spontaneously without being forced or coerced into it.


To me, this is yet another intellectual contraption. What on earth does it mean pertaining to an actual context in which moral values come into conflict.

Even relating to extreme behaviors like rape or murder or genocide, something is said to be evil from a particular point of view. Yet there are those able to rationalize them. Not only that but there are those who will insist that, say, aborting unborn babies is extremely evil. On the contrary say others what is extremely evil is forcing women to give birth.

Now, with God such behaviors are deemed to be or not to be sins. But what of a Godless world? How is evil encompassed then? In a world of conflicting goods?

Prismatic567 wrote: There is no need for empirical proofs to prove God do not exists. Like everything that is empirical, the onus is on the theists to prove God exists within empirical-rational reality.


Still, that does not bring you any closer to closing the gap between what you think you know about God/No God here and now and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that this is in sync with the optimal or the only rational understanding of Existence itself.

At best you can argue that you are in fact able to explain Existence qua Existence [Being qua Being] but that I am not able to grasp this.


Prismatic567 wrote: Note my earlier argument in the first of this series re you cannot presuppose there is a God, until you have proven God exists. But as I had proven God is an impossibility and a non-starter.


This is where we just go around and around in circles.

"In your head" you have proven that God is an impossibilty. How? By insisting that the meaning that you give to the words used in your arguments/analyses/concepts are necessarily true. But you have absolutely no capacity to scour the entire universe in order to confirm that there is in fact No God. And you are still burdened with the gap that exist between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that would need to be known by any mere mortal to know for sure.

Or, rather, as with folks like James Saint, you have not demonstrated to me that you have closed this gap.

You point out:

Prismatic567 wrote: Note the thread I raised on 'What is Dasein?' I am interested what is your conception of 'Dasein'. I have read a lot on Heidegger but do not have a good grasp of his philosophies.


You need to take this up with others. My aim here is to consider the "concept" of God that others have concocted "in their head"; and then explore the extent to which this "world of words" can be intertwined into the world we live in when men and women come into conflict over value judgments. Either in a world with or without God.

Prismatic567 wrote: If I am not mistaken Heidegger's view is humans are 'thrown into' existence. Such a view can lead to problems because the implied metaphors [Lakoff and Johnson] like the 'container' metaphor where things are thrown "into" some container. This naturally to lead to linking 'existence' with some thing, but the reality is there is no thing in the first place. It is only this default metaphor [thus psychology] that compel one to relate to some thing ending as a reified thing from no thing.

Thus philosophically one should not be overly insistence with 'God exists' or 'God do not exists' but rather faced "reality" as an emergence that unfold interdependently with the subject-as-no-thing.


Again, I have absolutely no idea what this conveys to us about conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments in a No God world.

Note an example from your own life of late --- an experience in which you can "flesh out" these points for us.

Prismatic567 wrote: From Kant's POV of view, what we can do at present is to do the best and prevent the worst evils wherever possible. If we cannot then we have to accept whatever the outcome.


What Kant's philosophy entriely avoids in my view is the manner in which I construe the meaning of conflicting goods. Encompassed here by William Barrett:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

Note where he focuses the beam that is human psychology. On the need to embody certainty in one or another rendition of objectivism.

Sure, one can speak of "evil" as though it can be calculated objectively. But, from my frame of mind, I wonder: how is this actually done sans God?

Prismatic567 wrote: Why is killing another person is a greater evil than lying?
This rule will have to be deliberated in detail. It is a long story, I will not go into the details but the point is such a rule is not raised blindly from nowhere.


Okay, so there is then a gap between rules not raised blindly and out of nowhere and rules that reflect the political prejudices of those in power at any particular historical, cultural and experiential juncture.

Yet Kant is really no better equipped than the rest of us in drawing the lines here. Not without his transcending font.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.


Prismatic567 wrote: Yes, it only seems to you.
There is no Universal standards at present, but it not very difficult to establish universal standards and progressively improve on it.


Sure, down the road [maybe hundreds of years from now] there will be a "universal standard" whereby each and every pregnant woman can be told by that era's rendition of the philosopher-kings whether this particular abortion or that particular abortion is either "good" or "evil".

As for how difficult this might be, why don't you start us off by proposing such standards for an issue like abortion.

On the other hand, from my point of view, you will either take your "intellectual contraptions" above to the grave [and many, many have] or you will come to grasp just how immense that gap must be between what you think you know about God here and now and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to know this.

The irony [from my point of view] is the extent to which you fail to recognize just how much your own frame of mind here is actually in sync with the religionists as a psychological contraption.

In other words, it's that you know more so than what you know.

Well, sans the part about immortality, salvation and divine justice.
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: 27393
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:44 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: Whatever benefits from Buddhism at the higher levels are supported by empirical evidences, it is just that these are confined to a small number of people. So the task is to deliver these benefits to a majority of people.


All I can do here [yet again] is to note this as a "general description". What particular contexts in which Buddhists make claims of benefits. And you can bet there will be any number of folks lining up to argue that, on the contrary, we will benefit all the more if we think like they do, feel like they do, behave like they do.

If Buddhism "works" for someone, fine. But [from my frame of mind] it doesn't make dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away. And mere mortals of either the Eastern or the Western persuasion are still confronted with connecting the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side of it.

That doesn't go away either. And we know for a fact there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of contexts in which those behaviors come into conflict.

And all the self-development and meditation in the world doesn't seem to putting much of a dent into that.


Prismatic567 wrote: One critical point, again [I have explained in detail above], my proposals re Buddhist philosophies is NOT for application in our present state, but only when certain conditions are met in the future.


Sort of like Plato imagining the ideal Republic. That is, conceptually, in a world of words.

This part I get.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is not the case of 'Buddhism "works" for someone.'
What I stated was, the core principles and the more refined levels of practices Buddhism has great potential to contribute to World Peace.


As long as it all pertains to "general descriptions" of human interaction.

Just out of curiosity how do you imagine Buddhists confronting the arguments of those who advance the frame of mind that revolves around political economy.

This:

Political economy is the study of production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth.

In other words, do you imagine that they imagine themselves succeeding where the No God socialists and communists failed?

How in particular do Buddhists imagine "social justice" as this pertains to, among other things, "the market economy", "democracy and the rule of law", "controlling the means of production"?

How would Buddhists reconfigure the global economy? How would they confront the "show me the money!" moral nihilists who currently own and operate it?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27393
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:03 pm

phyllo wrote:
No, I pointed out that while this may well constitute a demonstration for some, it does not constitute a demonstration for me.

Though, sure, that in itself does not constitute a demonstration that God does not exist.


One would think that a person who constantly writes about the importance of demonstrations has thought about it extensively and has some insights to share.

One would be wrong.


Perhaps that's because I have given considerable thought to the gap that clearly does exist between what I think about the existence of God here and now and all that I would need to know about Existence itself in order to be certain that I can demonstrate it to others.

As I point out over and over again, in that respect we are all in the same teeny, tiny boat: unimaginably infinitesimal specks afloat on the staggeringly vast expanse that is Reality itself.

I am just among the very few who actually do take at least some time to think about it "philosophically". You know, instead of merely wallowing in pop culture and mass consumption; or in embracing one or another comforting and consoling shortcut that I call objectivism.

Or in simply struggling to subsist from day to day.

phyllo wrote: The rest of your post is about God. I'm not going to respond because I don't care about that. I only responded to you in order to discuss "demonstrations" - what's valid/invalid, convincing/unconvincing, sufficient/insufficient.


Note to others:

What the hell does that mean?!!! :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: 27393
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:17 pm

Well, you made me laugh. :lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10923
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:24 pm

phyllo wrote:Well, you made me laugh. :lol:


It is truly sad when I am able to reduce you down to this sort of "retort".

Note to others:

It is, isn't it? :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: 27393
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:30 pm

Take it as a compliment.

And be grateful. [-o<
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10923
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby dan25 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:50 pm

James S Saint wrote:
dan25 wrote:What exactly is "empirical-rational reality"?
Does it differ from actual reality, if so how?

I suspect what he means is, "whatever scientists (or rather their media outlet) tell us to believe", but he didn't want to say or admit to that. His religion Secularism (which abhors and denies the fact that it is a religion), so he divides thought into "our righteous rational elite thoughts" and "your superstitious irrational foolish thoughts". And if you don't agree with him then you obviously belong in the second group (along with the rest of the world).


Thanks for helping clarify.
I have thought a great deal about the relationship between God and science, and particularly about what, if anything, science can tell us about the existence of God....

Long story short, science can't tell us anything about Gods existence.
dan25
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:34 pm

Empirical Possible Multiple Realities: Schizoid Personality

Postby Arminius » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:02 am

dan25 wrote:
Prismatic567 has to 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?

This 'proof' relies entirely upon how you (arbitrarily) define the word "God", much like Anselms ontological 'proof'.
However we define words it makes no difference whatsoever to what actually does or doesn't exist in reality.
You haven't really proved anything about God (maybe something about your own psychology, reasoning skills, etc.).

Prismatic's opening post and almost all his/her other posts are full of logical fallacies and hollow phrases (there is nothing behind it). He/she does not define "God", "absolute perfection", "absolutely perfect". Apart from this, he/she tries to magically "convince" every other stupid guy who reads his/her schizoid and delusionial "realities" (note, just for example, his/her schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities"). A schizoid personality wants multiple realities, okay, but he/she is not able to prove or demonstrate his "multiple realities".

And why is he/she so hostile just to theists? Why is he/she not capable of understanding that one does not have to be a theist in order to know what a logical fallacy is. :wink:

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:As usual, in any reading one has to take the point in its whole context. Note the point you highlighted, Kant included the term "moral." In the whole context of Kant's philosophy the only consideration he allowed for 'God' is only within the 'morality' perspective and only under certain conditions not in general terms. If you research into Kant's morality, you will be VERY surprised how he related God to humans [in a totally unexpected manner as how theists relate to God].

The point is that Kant has never said "God is an impossibility" and that you have said that he had said it, thus that you have lied.

Prismatic567 wrote:Based on the many polls, Kant is recognized as one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times. I have high respect for Kant's philosophy but I do not agree with EVERYTHING he proposed, and for whatever I agree with Kant, I ensured it is justified soundly.

Yes, but it is also true that you are using Kant and his philosophy for your pseudo arguments that are based on logical fallacies and have nothing to do with Kant.

Prismatic567 wrote:The problem is theists are compelled by subliminal psychological compulsion to hastily stop the infinite regression and jumped to the conclusion [based on faith] to insist God is the final cause which is a leap beyond the empirical. Such a God that stopped infinite regression can never be an empirically possible God at all, but is merely based on thoughts and pure primal psychological reasons. This is merely speculation and wishful thinking to cover and soothe the psychological angst pulsating from the deep chasms of the psyche.

Your cynical lie again. The psychological conditions and situations of an atheist are very similar to those of the theists. Stop using your strawman again.

In addition: You do not even know that a belief or a religion, that theology or theism can be very secular too.

What you are stubbornly ignoring is the fact that both atheists and theists have proven you wrong.

Prismatic567 wrote:What I have proven is 'God is an Impossibility' based on logic, reason and argument.

That is another, namely the main one of your cynical lies.

You have proven nothing except the fact that you are wrong because of your logical fallacies and many misunderstandings of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Prismatic567 wrote:As such, in terms of truth, it is moot and a non-starter even to raise the question of whether God exists or not as real within an empirical-rational reality.

The 'idea of God' emerged into human consciousness merely as a thought to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential angst, i.e. for psychological reasons and never for consideration whether it is real or not.

Theists must be mindful and responsible that when they insist God is 'real', they are directly and indirectly contributing to an emergence of an ideology that is a double-edged sword that bring good and terrible evils.
This supposedly real God as claimed also deliver real holy texts [via messenger] that include evil laden elements that compel and inspire evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence upon non-believers.

Strawman again.

In addition: You are the one who have to give evidence. But you have never done this, because you are not capable of doing it.

Note that we are talking about the question whether God is possible (or perhaps not :P ), look at your title of your thread. Therefore it is not necessary to be a theist or an antitheist or an atheist or whoever - it is sufficient to be a logician, thus somebody who is not very similar to you. Both theists and atheists have proven you wrong. Why? Because they (unlike you) know how to use logic, namely by avoiding logical fallacies, and this has - in the first place - nothing to do with being a theist or an antitheist or an atheist. 8)

This time, I'll be the "lackey".
    Arminius is exactly right. 8)


Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:In another thread, you (Prism) have defined the "theist's God" as "the Reality underlying all realities". So now that you have conceded to something a lot closer to a true statement, how are you going to prove that a Reality underlying all realities, is impossible?

Where?
Prismatic567 wrote:My usual argument is 'reality' is relative to a Framework and System which there are many.
As a counter to the above, the theist will claim there is a 'Reality' i.e. God that is absolutely real within all other realities conceivable.

That's where. So, back to the issue - to the theist, "God is Reality itself". And who have you been trying to argue with, but the theists.

    So what you have to prove and demonstrate is that there is no Reality, no "uni-verse".


Prismatic567 wrote:Now such a 'Reality' aka 'God' must be absolutely-absolute or absolutely-perfect, i.e. it is not related/conditioned to those 'realities' others can come up with.

Well, poorly stated, but not entirely dumb. The problem is that you said that "The Reality" (let's call it) is "unrelated" to your multiple realities. Who ever said they have to be unrelated to The Reality?

Prismatic567 wrote:Point is when one use the term 'absolute' in the sense of absolutely-absolute or absolutely-perfect, it emphasized it is totally unconditional.

"Perfect" doesn't really have anything to do with "unconditional" unless the conditions are flaws.

Prismatic567 wrote:Such an unconditional [flawless] reality can be thought by theists with pure primal reason but it cannot be real within an empirical-rational-reality* to convince every empirical-rational person.
* As stated above all empirical-rational-realities are conditional.

That depicts your silliness. You create this phrase, "empirical-rational-realities". I suspect that you are not aware that a common symptom of schizoid personality is to invent such phrases and words as justifications within explanations expecting them to be taken seriously without definition.

    Define your term, "empirical-rational-realities".

The larger problem that you are going to have with such a definitoin is with the word "realities".

    You are going to have to prove or demonstrate that there are multiples realities.

Note Prismatic’s "empirical possible multiple realities". :!:

Or is he/she neither he nor she, but it? If so, then it must be a pretty false computer program. I guess, it is more a they, but at least a multiple personality with multiple ILP accounts. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:39 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
    So what you have to prove and demonstrate is that there is no Reality, no "uni-verse".
My point;

1. To the theist, "God is Reality itself"
2. God is an Impossibility - argument re OP
3. Therefore 'Reality' [theists'] is an impossibility.

Geeezzz .. back to dumb arguments posing as logic.

Your #2 is not accepted (by anyone), thus cannot be a premise. A proof has to be a proof in someone's eyes (besides your own unless you are claiming to be a holy prophet).

The reason #2 cannot be accepted by anyone is that your supposed definition for God in the OP is ridiculous for all of the reasons that people have been telling you.

And you cannot say that...
    the definition of G is X and also
    the definition of G is Y and
    since X is false, then Y is false.
    therefore G is false
..unless X and Y are identically the same. And in your case, they are not. You cannot have two different definitions of the same item. The definition that you provided in the OP is not a definition (whether any theist has ever claimed it of God or not).

Eventually you came up with an acceptable definition for "God" and one with which theists actually agree. So you have to start from there. Your prior attempts failed miserably. You have been told why by many people.

To make any headway, you now have to prove that The Reality, above all "realities" (whatever that means) is impossible. And you cannot use prior failed arguments for evidence.

Your above is a straw man.

Dumb .. logic? What is wrong with my syllogism structure?
If you don't agree with my premises, that is a common thing.
The premises in my arguments are not definitions they are soundly justified premises.
So far you have not been able to convince me my premises are baseless.

What you have argued, re 'absolute,' perfection, and the likes are very childish and philosophical immature. Note my point re the finer meaning of 'absolute' in relation to 'God' below.

Note 'The Reality' is another deceptive label for 'God.'
Show me how your 'The Reality' is even possible within an empirical-rational reality.


Prismatic567 wrote: the empirical possible multiple realities.

And you still have to define that little twisted term.
I suppose you never read my posts carefully but countered blindly - confirmation bias.

Note I wrote this above;

As I had stated, there is a qualified Scientific reality that is conditioned to the Scientific Framework and System. No scientific theory can stand on its own without reference to the Scientific Method and its processes.

There is the common sense reality where ordinary people cannot differentiate from what is really real and illusions but merely accept for whatever is experienced and thought.
Then we have the various hierarchy of philosophical realities based on the various philosophical ideologies, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, Empiricism versus Rationalism, etc.


Philosophical Realists like you claim reality as follows;
Wiki wrote:Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.

Philosophical Anti-Realists do not agree with the untenable Philosophical Realism and claim various anti-realist views.

Philosophical Realists [like you] claim there is only ONE Reality out there which humans attempt to correspond with evidences, concepts, principles, laws, etc.

You have no grounds to claim there is only ONE Reality, i.e. The Reality.
Otherwise show me your proofs?

Nb: I used 'wiki' as a convenience not as something carved in stone tablet. If you are doubtful, counter check with SEP, IEP and some other more credible philosophical sources.

Prismatic567 wrote:English is not my first language but I am not stupid.

Well, the jury is out on that one. We can't decide between delusional, stupid, ignorant, or some combination. Although we do have "arrogant" nailed down.
Justifying my arguments strongly and stating fact is not "arrogant."
The fact is your philosophical bases are too narrow and shallow. Otherwise prove it by bringing more groundings to your philosophical views.

Again, it's insufficient (if not "stupid" or "delusional") to reference your own mistakes as evidence of success and truth. And you thinking that they are not mistakes is irrelevant and evidence toward that "delusional" pronouncement.
    A proof is only a proof to the person who accepts your reasoning.
And so far, that has been no one (whether you think them "rational" or not).

That is only your bias opinion.

Prismatic567 wrote:Another most critical quality attributed to God is 'Absolute';

It might be critical in a lot of ways, but it is not a definition of God. The Reality can be said to be "absolute", but as a definition, it would have to read, "absolute ... something". "Absolute" is an adjective, not a noun, but "God" is a noun.
Yes, "absolute ... something."
But the claim with God is everything that is attributed to God is 'absolute'.
This is why many theists label God as The Absolute [with Capital A].

Wiki wrote:In philosophy, the concept of the Absolute is closely related to that of God in monotheism, albeit not necessarily referring to a personal deity.


The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense. It can include or overlap with meanings implied by other concepts such as infinite, totality, and perfection.
In Christian theology, the Absolute is conceived as being synonymous with or an essential attribute of God, and it characterizes other natures of God such as His love, truth, wisdom, existence (omnipresence), knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), and others. Absolute love, for example, denotes an unconditional love as opposed to conditional, limited love. Likewise, the absolute can also be understood as the Ultimate Being, or a characteristic of it, in other religious traditions.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... philosophy)


The term absolute denotes whatever is free from any condition or restriction, and independent from any other element or factor. As with other concepts such as infinite, perfection, eternity, and others, absolute can be articulated only by negating finite concepts.
Something that is absolute, in itself, is not immediately or directly accessible by human perception, experience, and comprehension.
Thus, the concept of absoluteness is usually defined by negating what are immediately available to human knowledge.
Perception and comprehension, in a usual sense of the term, are a relational event which presupposes relative elements such as knowing subject and object of knowledge.
If the term absolute is understood in the strict sense, it rejects the relativity which is inherent to the mechanism of human cognition, understanding, and language.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... philosophy)#Conceptual_issues


I suggest you read the above carefully and let the point sink in.

Note this point;
    "If the term absolute is understood in the strict sense, it rejects the relativity which is inherent to the mechanism of human cognition, understanding, and language."
I have argued why 'absolute' and 'perfection' MUST [imperative] be taken in the strictest sense.
As such God as an absolutely perfect being is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

I believe when I state "empirical-rational reality" you jump to the common understanding 'reality' is something as an object out there.
NO! the concept of "reality" in this case is not a pre-existing thing out there, it is an "emergence" that is independent with the self. In this sense, humans are the co-creator of that "reality" which they are a part of. Note this is not my personal opinion, I stand on 'shoulders of philosopher-giants' to ground my point.

I anticipate you will condemn blah -blah -blah as usual with your confirmation bias and that is because you lack the depths and widths of necessary philosophical knowledge to understand [not necessary agree with] deal with those refined issues.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Empirical Possible Multiple Realities: Schizoid Personal

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:47 am

Arminius wrote:Prismatic's opening post and almost all his/her other posts are full of logical fallacies and hollow phrases (there is nothing behind it). He/she does not define "God", "absolute perfection", "absolutely perfect". Apart from this, he/she tries to magically "convince" every other stupid guy who reads his/her schizoid and delusionial "realities" (note, just for example, his/her schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities"). A schizoid personality wants multiple realities, okay, but he/she is not able to prove or demonstrate his "multiple realities".

And why is he/she so hostile just to theists? Why is he/she not capable of understanding that one does not have to be a theist in order to know what a logical fallacy is. :wink:


Or is he/she neither he nor she, but it? If so, then it must be a pretty false computer program. I guess, it is more a they, but at least a multiple personality with multiple ILP accounts. :wink:
I had claimed the basis for the idea of God is necessary to soothe the terrible psychological angst within.
For me, due to the real evidence of the potential of critical threats from the ideologies of theism, I [as a citizen of humanity] have a responsibility to critique theism.
I understand my very strong and soundly justified criticisms will trigger & threaten the psychological security of some theists but this is a necessary compromised and sacrifice for humanity sake.
I apologize if this is the case with you but I have to continue with my criticisms.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:21 am

dan25 wrote:This 'proof' relies entirely upon how you (arbitrarily) define the word "God", much like Anselms ontological 'proof'.
However we define words it makes no difference whatsoever to what actually does or doesn't exist in reality.
You haven't really proved anything about God (maybe something about your own psychology, reasoning skills, etc.).

I agree that "perfection" is an ideal, something that exists only in the mind ( i.e. has no physical (empirical) existence), but many theists would NOT define the word "God" in precisely the same way as you have defined it.
Premiss two is false......
Your whole argument is a "non starter".


Note God as an Absolute-Perfect-Being is not my definition nor invention from the air.
I abstracted this from a 'literature review' of what most theists believe their God is.
I also argued why the ultimate God MUST be an ontological God.
Note my explanations [variously] re why 'absolute' and The Absolute is related to God. e.g.
viewtopic.php?p=2688036#p2688036

Also note:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... philosophy)

What exactly is "empirical-rational reality"?
Does it differ from actual reality, if so how?

I have explained above, repeat

Prismatic wrote:I believe when I state "empirical-rational reality" you will jump to the common understanding 'reality' is something as an object out there.

NO! the concept of "reality" in this case is not a pre-existing thing out there, it is an "emergence" that is independent with the self.
In this sense, humans are the co-creator of that "reality" which they are a part of. Note this is not my personal opinion, I stand on 'shoulders of philosopher-giants' to ground my point.


Note Kant [Philosophical anti-realist] argued there is no such thing as thing-in-itself, i.e. in this case no reality-in-itself. Thus reality is reality-*with-myself or reality-with-ourselves.
*interdependent.
Buddhism-proper makes the same claim.

What exactly is "empirical-rational reality"?
First, wherever I mentioned the word 'reality' take note, it is not something out there to be corresponded with but rather in the sense of an 'emergence'.
Scientific reality is based on purely the empirical, but it has its weaknesses.
Empirical-rational reality is merely empirical based plus critical philosophical judgement as a co-creator of what-is in which the self is a part of.

Thus my empirical-rational reality as emerges do not include a God existing as a white man with a beard in the sky above [empirically very unlikely] nor as an absolutely perfect being [empirically impossible].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:07 am

"If the term absolute is understood in the strict sense, it rejects the relativity which is inherent to the mechanism of human cognition, understanding, and language."

This has been refuted so many times it would be pointless to do it again.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:12 am

In science if a hypothesis cannot be subject to potential falsification then it is deemed to be invalid
And this would be the case where the hypothesis in question was to determine the existence of God

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective means by which this can be falsified or verified
As an atheist I dont think God exists because of lack of evidence but I cannot be absolutely certain of this

So any one claiming certainty either way is just expressing a subjective opinion masquerading as objective truth
Objective truth pertaining to physical reality has to be capable of verification else it is no more than an assertion
Of course it could still be true but without such verification it would be rather presumptuous to assume that it was
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:09 am

surreptitious75 wrote:In science if a hypothesis cannot be subject to potential falsification then it is deemed to be invalid
And this would be the case where the hypothesis in question was to determine the existence of God

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective means by which this can be falsified or verified
As an atheist I dont think God exists because of lack of evidence but I cannot be absolutely certain of this

So any one claiming certainty either way is just expressing a subjective opinion masquerading as objective truth
Objective truth pertaining to physical reality has to be capable of verification else it is no more than an assertion
Of course it could still be true but without such verification it would be rather presumptuous to assume that it was


As a theist, I agree that "God" cannot be proved via reason or empirical evidence, but "lack of evidence" is not a valid reason to disbelieve. Evidence requires boundaries and boundaries indicate limitation. How many theists will agree that God is so bounded? Asking for evidence is like asking if God can make a rock too heavy to lift: it's not a paradox, it's nonsensical.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:48 am

Lack of evidence is a valid reason to disbelieve if evidence is the actual criteria for belief. But then it would no longer be belief as
it would have an empirical basis to it. God by definition has to be bounded since logic demands it. Now some try to get around this
by claiming God transcends logic but only because it conveniently avoids disproving his possible existence by logical argumentation
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Empirical Possible Multiple Realities: Schizoid Personal

Postby Arminius » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:07 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Prismatic's opening post and almost all his/her other posts are full of logical fallacies and hollow phrases (there is nothing behind it). He/she does not define "God", "absolute perfection", "absolutely perfect". Apart from this, he/she tries to magically "convince" every other stupid guy who reads his/her schizoid and delusionial "realities" (note, just for example, his/her schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities"). A schizoid personality wants multiple realities, okay, but he/she is not able to prove or demonstrate his "multiple realities".

And why is he/she so hostile just to theists? Why is he/she not capable of understanding that one does not have to be a theist in order to know what a logical fallacy is. :wink:


Or is he/she neither he nor she, but it? If so, then it must be a pretty false computer program. I guess, it is more a they, but at least a multiple personality with multiple ILP accounts. :wink:
I had claimed the basis for the idea of God is necessary to soothe the terrible psychological angst within.
For me, due to the real evidence of the potential of critical threats from the ideologies of theism, I [as a citizen of humanity deluions and angst] have a responsibility neurotic compulsion to critique theism.
I understand my very strong and soundly justified criticisms will trigger & threaten the psychological security of some theists strawmen but this is a necessary compromised and sacrifice for humanity strawmen sake.

It seems that you are not capable of reading either.

I have been saying for a very long time and over and over again that your statements have nothing to do with theism in the first place. You are wrong because of your logical fallacies - based on your false definitions, your false premises and thus your false conclusions.

You are not capable of understanding this, because your main problem is a logical one (thus also a psychological one).

To you, your delusion and your angst are more important than any kind of logic. Psychologically said, you are full of anxiety or angst: you even horribly fear God and theists. Your opening post and all your other posts show clearly that theists, antitheists or atheists are not needed in order to see that you are wrong, that your problem has nothing to do with theism, antitheism and atheism in the first place, because your problem is primarily and mainly a logical and thus also a psychological problem.

What I have been saying here in your thread and in all your other threads is based on logic. Your problem is logic (psychologic problems included of course).

--------

Note:

You say or at least suggest that you are against monotheists in particular.

The typical monotheisms (more accurately called "henotheisms") are Judaism and Islam. No other religion is monotheistic (more accurately called "henotheistic").

Christianity is no purely monotheistic religion, because the Christian God can be (1) God Father, (2) God Son, (3) God Holy Ghost, and he has a (4) mother too, the so-called "Mother of God". (4 does not equal 1.) If a god has a mother, then this has nothing to do with monotheism; if a god can be three different gods, then this has nothing to do with monotheism. (3 does not equal 1.) So Christianity is more polytheism than a monotheism.

Polytheistic gods do not have to be and are not perfect or, as you say, "absolutely perfect". A god does not have to be such a god - all polytheistic religions and also all (namely: two [see above]) monotheistic religions show this clearly. The god of the Jews and the Muslims is not absolutely good, but more evil than good. And polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: "monotheism"). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are "undying humans", so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said "undying humans" as the said "projections of the humans". So, their gods were not "absolutely perfect" - their gods were much more unperfect than perfect.

So your claim that a god must be "absolutely perfect" is nonsense, based on your delusions and angst. God can be a principle, God can be the first mover, God can be the first cause ... etc., but God does not have to be "absolutely perfect". An "absolutely perfect" God is your wishful thinking, based on your delusions and angst; if this were not so, then you would not do what you want to do because of your delusions and angst: attack him and the theists in order to get rid of your delusions and angst. So, all your statements that are based on logical fallacies have primarily and mainly to do with your delusions and your angst.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:25 pm

Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it has only one God. God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations
of the same God. They are three in one not three separate from each other. Furthermore the First Commandment clearly states there is only one God
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:50 pm

Prism, we need for you to define your term, "realities".
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 Arminius » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:57 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it has only one God. God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations of the same God.

I know very well what you mean, and according to many but not all Christians you are right; but people of the Jewish and the Islamic religion do not agree on the statement that the trinity you are speaking of is a "manifestation" of one god and thus of monotheism. In addition, they do not agree on the statement that a god has or should have a mother, because this would mean more than one god, at least two gods. If you visit certain countries of Europe, you will see that their Christian cult has more to do with the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God than with God himself or his son Jesus (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries) or his Holy Ghost (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries). Christianity is not only characterized by division of powers (see: the Christians’ trinity and Mother of God), but also by the separation of its Church and the state (laicism) as well as by peacefulness and humanity.

surreptitious75 wrote:They are three in one not three separate from each other. Furthermore the First Commandment clearly states there is only one God.

The First Commandment clearly belongs to the Jewish religion - regardless whether it is also accepted by Christians or not.

But this is more a subject of another thread, for example the following one: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187389.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Empirical Possible Multiple Realities: Schizoid Personal

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:52 am

Arminius wrote:You say or at least suggest that you are against monotheists in particular.

The typical monotheisms (more accurately called "henotheisms") are Judaism and Islam. No other religion is monotheistic (more accurately called "henotheistic").

Christianity is no purely monotheistic religion, because the Christian God can be (1) God Father, (2) God Son, (3) God Holy Ghost, and he has a (4) mother too, the so-called "Mother of God". (4 does not equal 1.) If a god has a mother, then this has nothing to do with monotheism; if a god can be three different gods, then this has nothing to do with monotheism. (3 does not equal 1.) So Christianity is more polytheism than a monotheism.
Your views above are too shallow and narrow. I agree there are various forms of monotheism, but what is critical here is the substance or essence. Note 'monotheism'

Wiki wrote:The broader definition of monotheism characterizes the traditions of Bábism, the Bahá'í Faith, Balinese Hinduism,[9] Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Hindu sects such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, Islam, Judaism, Mandaeism, Rastafari, Seicho no Ie, Sikhism, Tengrism (Tangrism), Tenrikyo (Tenriism), Yazidism, and Zoroastrianism, and elements of pre-monotheistic thought are found in early religions such as Atenism, Ancient Chinese religion, and Yahwism.
In essence, Monotheism is the believe in ONE God that stand by itself [Islam] or overrides whatever sub-gods or forms of God that are believed, e.g. Christianity, Hindu Brahman.

Polytheistic gods do not have to be and are not perfect or, as you say, "absolutely perfect". A god does not have to be such a god - all polytheistic religions and also all (namely: two [see above]) monotheistic religions show this clearly. The god of the Jews and the Muslims is not absolutely good, but more evil than good. And polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: "monotheism"). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are "undying humans", so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said "undying humans" as the said "projections of the humans". So, their gods were not "absolutely perfect" - their gods were much more unperfect than perfect.

So your claim that a god must be "absolutely perfect" is nonsense, based on your delusions and angst. God can be a principle, God can be the first mover, God can be the first cause ... etc., but God does not have to be "absolutely perfect". An "absolutely perfect" God is your wishful thinking, based on your delusions and angst; if this were not so, then you would not do what you want to do because of your delusions and angst: attack him and the theists in order to get rid of your delusions and angst. So, all your statements that are based on logical fallacies have primarily and mainly to do with your delusions and your angst.
I have already explained why the idea of God as believed and psychologically intended will and must ultimately gravitate and be reduced to an absolutely perfect God.
It has to be because no rational [basic] will accept their God to be inferior to another, i.e. having their god having to kiss the ass of another more inferior God.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Meno_ » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:04 am

The most rational of men, the ancient Greeks, were ok with inferior gods who held traits of jealousy, anger, violence, immortality, and the like.

They were more human, oh so human, the highest god was the cause of their fall. Does this imply an anthropomorphic schizophrenia between Philosophers and the gods of the common man?
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:29 am

James S Saint wrote:Prism, we need for you to define your term, "realities".
As I had stated before, what is real is always conditioned to the Framework and Systems that reality emerges or is actualized.

Here is an exercise for you to understand 'what is reality?'

    1. Take a very large room and is sufficiently tight.
    2. 1000 cc of a certain liquid [water] is put in the middle of the room
    3. I ask, what is the reality of that liquid under the following conditions;

    a. Normal room temperature -liguid
    b. The temperature in the room is raised to 150 degrees centigrade -steam
    c. The temperature is slowly reduced to 10 degree C - mist
    d. Reduce to normal room temperature - liguid
    e. Reduce temperature to minus 10 degree C - ice.
    f. Viewing the water with an electron microscope

The question is, what is the reality of that substance we put in the middle of the room.

The answer is, it is;
    a. Real liguid of water
    b. Real steam
    c. Real Mist
    d. Real ice
    e. Real hydrogen and real oxygen molecules tightly packed
    f. Real quarks ..

So what is the reality of that substance that was placed in the middle of the room?
The answer is the reality of that substances varies with the conditions of the room.
That cannot be ONE Reality for every thing.
Whatever [including the Reality of realities] you conceive as reality is always conditioned by a Framework and System, thus there is no unconditional absolute reality.
If you think otherwise, show me how can you go about proving there is only ONE reality!

A living alien who lives an environment that has one of the condition permanently will never be able to experience and know other realities besides the only one that it is exposed to.

I have used 'water' as an example which is obvious to those with some scientific knowledge.
But all 'things' within what we call 'reality' are conditioned within the above principles, it is just that many things are seemingly solid and 'permanent.'

Here's Russell on the Philosophical persepctive of Reality' and he questioned whether there is a 'Real' table in the first place.

Russell wrote:Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.



There is no 'ONE REALITY', there are only realities that are real subject to qualified-conditions.

Why you think there is only ONE Reality because you are stuck with customs and habits [Hume] and where you are so dogmatic about it is because of psychological angst.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:59 am

Do you understand what a definition is?
def·i·ni·tion
ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
2. the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

I didn't ask to define "Reality". I know that one.
re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/
noun
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"
synonyms: the real world, real life, actuality; More
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

I asked for a definition of "realities" (plural). The definition of "Reality" has no plural to it, so your "realites" must be something different.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users