God is an Impossibility

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:40 am

Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:You said you have no issue, so I said deal, then you said you have issue. That's underhanded. You offer a deal, I accept, then you renege.
I did not offer any deal. It was your misunderstanding and note below you fallacy of conflation.

Yes you did; it's plain for everyone to see. First you cheat, and now you lie. Right here:

Prismatic567 wrote:If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that.

If you have no issue, then stop having issues.
I was not looking at it as deal per se. It is just a problem of semantics.

Note you are deliberately twisting the point. I stated I have no critical issue with someone choose lesser gods of which there are plenty out there, e.g. a monkey God, elephant God, Neptune, a god that eat the shit of another, etc. The ultimate is such theists still have to provide justifiable evidence to prove their God exists if they insist such a God is real.

I still have a critical issue with theists who choose an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God. Note based on their holy books, appx 6 billion theists believe in religions that represent an absolutely perfect God.

Btw, I don't need your patronization.
I personally know where I stand.

Yes, me too.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

You'll stop at nothing to avoid admitting you're wrong and it's astonishing the sacrifices you will make to that end. You've thrown your ethics right out the window and slaughtered your dignity on the altar of your ego. I'm not sure what else I could learn from this interaction as I'm thoroughly convinced you'd throw your only son under the bus to avoid admitting defeat and I suppose I now know what I needed to discover. Thank you for you time, but there is no point to us going round and round any further.
You are going in the direction of ad hominen instead of present valid arguments.

Thank you for you time, but there is no point to us going round and round any further.
I have no problem with that if you have run out of arguments to counter my views.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum, any one is free to express their views and any one is free to counter or agree whatever views is presented.
So just do the necessary, present your arguments or counter the arguments of others. There is no need to resort to ad hominens [an infraction in any forum].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:52 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
You'll stop at nothing to avoid admitting you're wrong and it's astonishing the sacrifices you will make to that end. You've thrown your ethics right out the window and slaughtered your dignity on the altar of your ego. I'm not sure what else I could learn from this interaction as I'm thoroughly convinced you'd throw your only son under the bus to avoid admitting defeat and I suppose I now know what I needed to discover. Thank you for you time, but there is no point to us going round and round any further.


NOtice Prismatic that this reaction to you and the way you post is becoming the rule. You are getting useful feedback about how you communicate and interact with people. There is very little we can do to ensure you learn from this. Fortunately, you lose something if you cannot learn about yourself, we don't.
I suggest you focus on the arguments rather than judging my character.
I will know how to learn from someone if I think there is need to and this had happened loads of time earlier in various forums and even at present [mostly elsewhere].

When I first started discussing in forums I have a disgust for homosexuality but since then have learned to accept [via knowledge] homosexuality as an unavoidable fact of humanity. There are many other things I have learned which you are not aware of.

So far what I have presented are philosophical arguments. If you think you have counter arguments then present them. There is no need to get emotionally and trying to teach me this or that.

The nasty responses I get from theists is the same since the days I started critiquing theism. I have even received threat of death in forums. Note in extreme cases, theists will even kill those who critique theism. The nasty responses I get from forum here are from the same psychological responses but of mild and low degrees.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:02 am

Serendipper wrote:In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect



Wow. That really explains Prismatic's attitude!
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:42 pm

Pris,

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

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.


For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to use the term “absolute perfection” in the way that you've applied it in your argument, even though I think its redundant and quite nonsensical.

How do you know, qua knowledge that absolute perfection is an impossibility? Something that is absolutely perfect could exist outside of the things that you know are possible to exist. IOW, to claim "absolute perfection is an impossibility", you must know everything, everywhere, that has, is and will be. Obviously you don't, so the claim that "absolute perfection is an impossibility" is based upon your limited knowledge. In short, to know that absolute perfection is an impossibility, you must be omniscient. Thus your 1st premise is based upon incomplete knowledge and is therefore false.

Why your 2nd premise "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect" is false has been expounded prior to this, but you refuse to accept it. It is simply that absolute perfection is not a predicate of existence, therefore an absolutely perfect God may or may not exist "imperative" does not necessarily follow. God could exist and not be absolutely perfect and God could exist and be absolutely perfect, there is no way that we can know for sure. We cannot say that it is impossible that an absolutely perfect God could exist because there's a list of things that we think define absolute perfection that cannot exist – that is just arbitrary and based upon limited knowledge. Who defines as a certainty what qualities make God absolutely perfect? Because theistic ideals claim that God is absolutely perfect does not necessitate that the God they're describing exists. So your 2nd premise is false.

Because both of your premises are false, your conclusion is also false, hence your syllogism is invalid.
Last edited by Fanman on Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Serendipper » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:53 am

Prismatic567 wrote:You are going in the direction of ad hominen instead of present valid arguments.

I have no problem with that if you have run out of arguments to counter my views.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum, any one is free to express their views and any one is free to counter or agree whatever views is presented.
So just do the necessary, present your arguments or counter the arguments of others. There is no need to resort to ad hominens [an infraction in any forum].

Yes, you're right, I am going in the direction of ad homs, but it's not my argument nor does it mean I'm out of arguments, just that I feel I'm arguing with a brick wall and desired to give feedback.

I agree that an absolute perfect god can't exist because an absolute perfect anything can't exist because it makes no sense. Something can't be both big/strong and small/nimble at the same time. There is no advantage that doesn't have a disadvantage.

But there is a sense in which god can be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and that's if god is the only entity in existence who is playing the roles of everything in the universe (the Brahman god). If there is nothing that is not god, then obviously he is everywhere all at once, knows everything, and controls everything. But that's quite different from the Jehovah god who is a separate entity who reigns supreme with all power, knowledge, and is somehow everywhere yet still distinct from all other entities that he has created from nothing. That god seems to me a nonsensical contrivance conjured for control of the people.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:08 am

Fanman wrote:Pris,

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

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.


For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to use the term “absolute perfection” in the way that you've applied it in your argument, even though I think its redundant and quite nonsensical.

Note “absolute perfection” is not my invention for the idea of God.
This term and idea is used by advanced theologians as the final and ultimate definition to represent their idea of a God.

How do you know, qua knowledge that absolute perfection is an impossibility? Something that is absolutely perfect could exist outside of the things that you know are possible to exist. IOW, to claim "absolute perfection is an impossibility", you must know everything, everywhere, that has, is and will be. Obviously you don't, so the claim that "absolute is an impossibility" is based upon your limited knowledge. In short, to know that absolute perfection is an impossibility, you must be omniscient. Thus your 1st premise is based upon incomplete knowledge and is therefore false.
Note my first premise should read with this phrase - within an empirical-rational reality.
Thus,
    P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

Note my basis of knowledge in this case is based on reason, i.e. reasoning and arguments.
Surely you know 1 + 1 = 4, 5 or >, is absolutely impossible within the decimal system and the empirical-rational reality.
Do you or anyone has to "know everything, everywhere, that has, is and will be?"
Answer: Has to be NO!
So does anyone has to be omniscient to know the above?
Answer: Has to be NO!

Thus your counter is blown to pieces.


Why your 2nd premise "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect" is false has been expounded prior to this, but you refuse to accept it.
It is simply that absolute perfection is not a predicate of existence, therefore an absolutely perfect God may or may not exist "imperative" does not necessarily follow.
God could exist and not be absolutely perfect and God could exist and be absolutely perfect, there is no way that we can no for sure. We cannot say that it is impossible that an absolutely perfect God could exist because there's a list of things that we think define absolute perfection that cannot exist – that is just arbitrary and based upon limited knowledge. Who defines as a certainty what qualities make God absolutely perfect? Because theistic ideals claim that God is absolutely perfect does not necessitate that the God they're describing exists. So your 2nd premise is false.

Because both of your premises are false, your conclusion is also false, hence your syllogism is invalid.
Your above is a straw man.

Why "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect?"
Due to psychological desperation, the idea of God was invented [conjectured]. But because the idea started of with crude speculations which are irrational, the
silly' idea of 'God exists' [as bearded man in the sky, etc.] were bombarded with sound rational counter by atheists and others.
Thus over time, there was a continual trend of defenses against the irrational arguments till it was pushed and reached the ultimate arguments ['ceiling'], i.e. the ontological God [absolutely perfect] as thought out by various theologians, e.g. St. Anselm, Descartes and others.

But in arriving at the idea of the ontological God, it takes the thought of God outside the empirical-rational realm of reality into the realm of pure reason which is a crude primal form of reason.

Note I have given many arguments [e.g. have to eat sh1t, etc.] why the thought of God must be idealized as an absolutely perfect ontological God than which no greater exists.

What is great is I have also provided the answer why the idea of God must be idealized, i.e. the reason is,
Due to psychological desperation, i.e.

    1. The above point has been recognized by many Eastern spirituality since thousands of years ago. So I have theoretical and practical evidence to support for my view, the idea of God is "Due to psychological desperation."

    2. I have also shown how the idea of God and experience of God can ooze out from the brain/ mind due to an altered state of consciousness from various mental illness, brain damage, drugs, chemicals, electronic stimulation, etc. etc.
    Most of the religions [especially theistic religions] were founded by a 'personality' who have had altered states of consciousness of God which is likely to have arose from the above reasons of activities in the brain rather than a pre-existing God choosing them as the messenger or prophet.

    3. Others -

In addition to my reason-based demolition of the God argument, i.e. an impossibility, based on Occam's my explanation in 1 and 2 as supported by empirical evidence is a more simpler and reasonable explanation than the idea of a God [illusory and impossible] based strongly on faith reason.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:17 am

Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:You are going in the direction of ad hominen instead of present valid arguments.

I have no problem with that if you have run out of arguments to counter my views.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum, any one is free to express their views and any one is free to counter or agree whatever views is presented.
So just do the necessary, present your arguments or counter the arguments of others. There is no need to resort to ad hominens [an infraction in any forum].

Yes, you're right, I am going in the direction of ad homs, but it's not my argument nor does it mean I'm out of arguments, just that I feel I'm arguing with a brick wall and desired to give feedback.
Hey, you are admitting to 'ad homs'?? =; , becareful, the moderators will be taking note of this admission.
As to you points above, note my reply to Fanman above.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:34 am

Pris,

Note “absolute perfection” is not my invention for the idea of God.
This term and idea is used by advanced theologians as the final and ultimate definition to represent their idea of a God.


I never claimed that it was. I understand that there is a consensus amongst theists that God is absolutely perfect.

Note my first premise should read with this phrase - within an empirical-rational reality.
Thus,
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.


What difference does that make to your syllogism/argument? It is a given that when you say “Absolute perfection is an impossibility” you mean in reality. The qualification “within an empirical-rational reality.” isn't necessary.

Note my basis of knowledge in this case is based on reason, i.e. reasoning and arguments.
Surely you know 1 + 1 = 4, 5 or >, is absolutely impossible within the decimal system and the empirical-rational reality.
Do you or anyone has to "know everything, everywhere, that has, is and will be?"
Answer: Has to be NO!
So does anyone has to be omniscient to know the above?
Answer: Has to be NO!


I don't understand how what you've stated here invalidates my refutation of your argument? Perhaps you could make it clearer/explain in more detail? My point is, how do you know that absolute perfection cannot exist in reality? You have to substantiate that claim, but it is not something that you could possibly know, because your (our) knowledge of reality is limited. Should I just take your word for it? You might as well be claiming that absolute perfection is impossible to exist in reality because you say so. The term “absolute perfection” is not self-contradictory or an oxymoron, it is used for emphasis.

What you've stated seems like a straw man, because I didn't claim that 1 + 1 = 4, 5 or > is possible. You are refuting something of your own design, not something that I've claimed.

Your above is a straw man.


A straw man? Please explain why you think its a straw man? You're arguing that "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect." I'm not attempting to refute a claim that you didn't make.

Why "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect?"
Due to psychological desperation, the idea of God was invented [conjectured]. But because the idea started of with crude speculations which are irrational, the 
silly' idea of 'God exists' [as bearded man in the sky, etc.] were bombarded with sound rational counter by atheists and others. 
Thus over time, there was a continual trend of defenses against the irrational arguments till it was pushed and reached the ultimate arguments ['ceiling'], i.e. the ontological God [absolutely perfect] as thought out by various theologians, e.g. St. Anselm, Descartes and others.

But in arriving at the idea of the ontological God, it takes the thought of God outside the empirical-rational realm of reality into the realm of pure reason which is a crude primal form of reason.

Note I have given many arguments [e.g. have to eat sh1t, etc.] why the thought of God must be idealized as an absolutely perfect ontological God than which no greater exists.


This is clearly speculation, not fact. This does not demonstrate why it is “imperative” that God must absolutely perfect, it demonstrates why you think that people have arrived at the conclusion that God is absolutely perfect. There is an epistemological difference that you don't seem to recognise.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:54 pm

Pris,

IMV, we cannot claim as a premise that X is impossible, unless we know that X is impossible or that X being impossible is axiomatic. Since in this case we cannot know that X (absolute perfection) is impossible, and we know that X being impossible is not axiomatic, the premise that X is impossible is false. Are you claiming that to know that absolute perfection cannot exist and/or that absolute perfection being an impossibility is axiomatic?
Last edited by Fanman on Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:01 pm

Why "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect?"
Due to psychological desperation, the idea of God was invented [conjectured].
What?

Your conclusion is that god does not exist, that god was invented.

But here you are using the "fact" that god was invented to justify one of your premises. Your premise is based on your conclusion. That makes your syllogism circular.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:22 pm

I can see how, psychologically speaking, it is or would be imperative for people to believe that their God is absolutely perfect.

Why do theologians preach about the absolute perfection of God? Perhaps because they understand human nature. Would this be a loss of integrity for them? Perhaps for many, if not most, it is also because they have no other recourse than absolute belief if they are to remain theologians without experiencing conflicting goods.

I do have my doubts as to whether many theologians and priests et cetera actually believe and hold to the absolute perfection of their God, especially those who are logical and rational thinkers and questioners. But then, what do I know?

Who would want to believe and worship a God who was lesser than ALL perfect, ALL omniscient, ALL omnipotent, ALL ubiquitous? et cetera.

Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Who could feel and receive the warmth, compassion, love and inner security needed in times of the above-mentioned if their belief was not absolute in these attributes of their God?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15250
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:02 pm

Who would want to believe and worship a God who was lesser than ALL perfect, ALL omniscient, ALL omnipotent, ALL ubiquitous? et cetera.

Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Who could feel and receive the warmth, compassion, love and inner security needed in times of the above-mentioned if their belief was not absolute in these attributes of their God?
There is a difference between what people want and what there is.

A god may exist Who does not have the characteristics that have been attributed to Him/Her/It by theists.

Prismatic does not show that such a God does not exist.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Serendipper » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:16 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Why ask dad for advice if he is not perfect?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:20 am

Fanman wrote:Pris,
Note my first premise should read with this phrase - within an empirical-rational reality.
Thus,
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.


What difference does that make to your syllogism/argument? It is a given that when you say “Absolute perfection is an impossibility” you mean in reality. The qualification “within an empirical-rational reality.” isn't necessary.

The point is one cannot pin down 'what is reality' absolutely - i.e. unconditionally.

Thus there are many perspectives to reality, i.e. from the common sense reality to that of Quantum World plus the rational perspectives of reality.

Therefore the concept of "empirical-rational reality" is the most refined and to differentiate it from common sense & scientific reality.
The concept of "empirical-rational reality" encompass the scientific basis of reality plus the highest philosophical basis of reality [critical thinking, wisdom, etc.].
There is no higher basis of reality than the "empirical-rational reality."

Note my basis of knowledge in this case is based on reason, i.e. reasoning and arguments.
Surely you know 1 + 1 = 4, 5 or >, is absolutely impossible within the decimal system and the empirical-rational reality.
Do you or anyone has to "know everything, everywhere, that has, is and will be?"
Answer: Has to be NO!
So does anyone has to be omniscient to know the above?
Answer: Has to be NO!


I don't understand how what you've stated here invalidates my refutation of your argument? Perhaps you could make it clearer/explain in more detail? My point is, how do you know that absolute perfection cannot exist in reality? You have to substantiate that claim, but it is not something that you could possibly know, because your (our) knowledge of reality is limited. Should I just take your word for it? You might as well be claiming that absolute perfection is impossible to exist in reality because you say so. The term “absolute perfection” is not self-contradictory or an oxymoron, it is used for emphasis.
My point is I don't have to know [empirically & rationally] everything to 'know' [by reason only].
I can know by reason only and a priori that 1 + 1 = 5 is wrong.
Thus I can know by reason only that “absolute perfection” is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

It is not based on my words of a mere statement. I have argued very extensively what I meant by 'absolute perfection'. Note the critical word here is 'absolute' = totally unconditional. In addition you need to differentiate between absolute and relative perfection.

A straw man? Please explain why you think its a straw man? You're arguing that "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect." I'm not attempting to refute a claim that you didn't make.
You are stating it is impossible to know everything because our knowledge is limited, so my thesis 'God is an impossibility' is limited.
You are wrong here because you have failed to differentiate between "knowing" empirically and "knowing" rationally by reason only.
Actually you have messed up everything with the term "knowing" because "knowing" is confined only to the empirical as knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs [JTB].
Proving by reason only is not precisely "knowing" it is actually theorizing.

Why "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect?"
Due to psychological desperation, the idea of God was invented [conjectured]. But because the idea started of with crude speculations which are irrational, the 
silly' idea of 'God exists' [as bearded man in the sky, etc.] were bombarded with sound rational counter by atheists and others. 
Thus over time, there was a continual trend of defenses against the irrational arguments till it was pushed and reached the ultimate arguments ['ceiling'], i.e. the ontological God [absolutely perfect] as thought out by various theologians, e.g. St. Anselm, Descartes and others.

But in arriving at the idea of the ontological God, it takes the thought of God outside the empirical-rational realm of reality into the realm of pure reason which is a crude primal form of reason.

Note I have given many arguments [e.g. have to eat sh1t, etc.] why the thought of God must be idealized as an absolutely perfect ontological God than which no greater exists.


This is clearly speculation, not fact. This does not demonstrate why it is “imperative” that God must absolutely perfect, it demonstrates why you think that people have arrived at the conclusion that God is absolutely perfect. There is an epistemological difference that you don't seem to recognise.

It is not a pure speculations but one premises that is based on actual thinkings of theists throughout the history of mankind.
Note I have abstracted the above 'Why God must be absolutely perfect' from the evolutionary idealization [thinkings] of God throughout the history of mankind. I suggest you do a research on this topic. I have also given extensive explanations on this premise.

The clue is this,
theists invented [conjectured] a lie [i.e. the idea of God] to deal with a real psychological issue re the existential crisis.
Such an irrational lie is so obvious to the average thinkers who will obviously question the irrational claims of the theists that a God exists.
This has happened since the idea of God first emerged and theists has been defending their irrational beliefs to secure the psychological security with all sort of lies, i.e. lies upon lies that a God exists culminating to the final ontological God, where they do not have anymore room to lie.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:37 am

Fanman wrote:Pris,

IMV, we cannot claim as a premise that X is impossible, unless we know that X is impossible or that X being impossible is axiomatic. Since in this case we cannot know that X (absolute perfection) is impossible, and we know that X being impossible is not axiomatic, the premise that X is impossible is false. Are you claiming that to know that absolute perfection cannot exist and/or that absolute perfection being an impossibility is axiomatic?
Note my point above where you messed up and conflate 'knowing' [empirical] with 'theorizing' [thoughts and ideas only].
For anything to be knowledge [to know] it must first go through the theorizing process as a thesis and feasible to be knowledge, then be subjected to empirical verification, testing and justification to qualify as knowledge.

The point here is the idea 'God exists' cannot even be theorized as feasible for empirical verification to qualify as Justified True Beliefs to be known.
Your proposal "God exists" is like proposing '1 + 1 = 5', which is impossible to start with as a theory to be justified as knowledge to be known.

The theists insistence 'God exists' is equivalent to '1 + 1 = 5' is purely a fantasy for psychological security. The point is who cares whether a thought [God exists] is logical or not as long as it works to soothe the real terrible existential angst oozing from the psyche.

The critical factor is whether the 'thought' works or not, e.g. a man/woman can think [fantasize] in mind the most sexiest woman/man and experience a real orgasm from merely thinking.
For the theists, mere thought of God exists [even it is irrational and not real] enable a constant divine 'orgasm' [relieve from existential angst].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:43 am

phyllo wrote:
Why "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect?"
Due to psychological desperation, the idea of God was invented [conjectured].
What?

Your conclusion is that god does not exist, that god was invented.

But here you are using the "fact" that god was invented to justify one of your premises. Your premise is based on your conclusion. That makes your syllogism circular.
Study my full argument properly.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:00 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:I can see how, psychologically speaking, it is or would be imperative for people to believe that their God is absolutely perfect.

Why do theologians preach about the absolute perfection of God? Perhaps because they understand human nature. Would this be a loss of integrity for them? Perhaps for many, if not most, it is also because they have no other recourse than absolute belief if they are to remain theologians without experiencing conflicting goods.

I do have my doubts as to whether many theologians and priests et cetera actually believe and hold to the absolute perfection of their God, especially those who are logical and rational thinkers and questioners. But then, what do I know?

Who would want to believe and worship a God who was lesser than ALL perfect, ALL omniscient, ALL omnipotent, ALL ubiquitous? et cetera.

Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Who could feel and receive the warmth, compassion, love and inner security needed in times of the above-mentioned if their belief was not absolute in these attributes of their God?
It is a very simple rational choice to pick the following;

    1. An absolutely perfect God no greater can exists and no other gods can greater and dominate, or

    2. A lesser god or gods who has the potential to be subordinated or subservient to another God which is greater and more powerful.

In choosing the above, one do not have to climb Mt. Everest or cross the 7 seas to qualify, all one need to merely to shift one's thinking and belief.
So it is so easy to say, I accept my God is an absolutely perfect God and thus be assured of all possibilities, especially ending in heaven with eternal life after physical death.

Actually to opt by mere thinking only in choosing the better or 'greatest no greater can exists' is very instinctual. The concept of one-up is so naturally and instinctual to humans right from the time they can think and this sort of thinking is still very common in playrounds and amongst children.
Especially on the question of the afterlife, one need the best and the greatest God who is the most powerful to be able to grant eternal life in heaven.

It is already happening, Allah of the Quran claims to be the absolute perfect God who can kick-ass all other gods which are deemed to be inferior and corrupted. Allah can also stop the other gods from conveying their believers to heaven with eternal life, instead Allah will send all non-believers to Hell. Surely to counter this all other theists has no other choice but to believe [so easy to shift thoughts] to an absolutely perfect God [highest possible] so be on par with Allah of the Quran.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:06 am

phyllo wrote:
Who would want to believe and worship a God who was lesser than ALL perfect, ALL omniscient, ALL omnipotent, ALL ubiquitous? et cetera.

Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Who could feel and receive the warmth, compassion, love and inner security needed in times of the above-mentioned if their belief was not absolute in these attributes of their God?
There is a difference between what people want and what there is.

A god may exist Who does not have the characteristics that have been attributed to Him/Her/It by theists.

Prismatic does not show that such a God does not exist.
Note I have shown 'God as what there is' [claimed by any theist] is moot and an impossibility to start with.
The anology to God exists is like '1 + 1 = 5' [decimal system].
So I don't even have to show God does not exist.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:12 am

Serendipper wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Why ask dad for advice if he is not perfect?
Yes, dad ..
When children are young, dad is the most powerful in the world who can give them the psychological security.
But when the grow older, the realize their dad is limited [not absolutely perfect] to grant them the psychological security [life after death]. This is why the most active theist proper are those in their late teens who has to cling to an invisible being, i.e. God the greatest who can provide the psychological security against inevitable mortality.

There is a book that rely on the above thesis to justify how God emerged onto the consciousness of humans. Can't remember which?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:36 am

Pris,

I can know by reason only and a priori that 1 + 1 = 5 is wrong.


“1+1 = 5” and “absolute perfection is impossible” are not within the same category of claims. The claim that 1+1 = 5 is incorrect, it would be seen as irrational and illogical to claim that it is. The claim that absolute perfection is impossible, is an assertion and must be proven in order to be a valid claim. The former claim is not debatable, the latter is.

In addition you need to differentiate between absolute and relative perfection.


No, I don't. In reality, the term "perfection" describes an absolute.

You are stating it is impossible to know everything because our knowledge is limited, so my thesis 'God is an impossibility' is limited.


That's is not an accurate reflection of what I claimed. You may need to re-read what I stated.

You are wrong here because you have failed to differentiate between "knowing" empirically and "knowing" rationally by reason only.


In either case, you cannot know that absolute perfection is an impossibility. Absolute perfection could exist and you're not aware of it.

1. My point is I don't have to know [empirically & rationally] everything to 'know' [by reason only].

2. Actually you have messed up everything with the term "knowing" because "knowing" is confined only to the empirical as knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs [JTB].

3. Proving by reason only is not precisely "knowing" it is actually theorizing.


If I am to take these three statements as being a true reflection of your thinking (which I have no reason not to), then by your own admission, you're arguing that reason does not allow us to claim something as knowledge, because only the empirical can be claimed as knowledge - proving things by reason is not precisely knowledge (whatever that means), it is theorising. If that is the case, then by your own argumentation, because your argument/syllogism is based upon reason and not anything empirical, you're only theorising that “God is impossible” and have not proven anything as knowledge, because to prove something as knowledge it has to be empirical.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:48 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Why ask dad for advice if he is not perfect?
Yes, dad ..
When children are young, dad is the most powerful in the world who can give them the psychological security.
But when the grow older, the realize their dad is limited [not absolutely perfect] to grant them the psychological security [life after death]. This is why the most active theist proper are those in their late teens who has to cling to an invisible being, i.e. God the greatest who can provide the psychological security against inevitable mortality.

There is a book that rely on the above thesis to justify how God emerged onto the consciousness of humans. Can't remember which?

My point is people can ask anyone for advice/assistance knowing they aren't perfect.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:59 am

Pris,

Note my point above where you messed up and conflate 'knowing' [empirical] with 'theorizing' [thoughts and ideas only].


This observation is not correct. I never made any such distinction, you have. I stated “know”, I made no reference to a distinction between empiricism and reason... Knowledge, whether arrived at through empiricism or reason is knowledge. Your distinction is yet again, arbitrary.

Your proposal "God exists" is like proposing '1 + 1 = 5', which is impossible to start with as a theory to be justified as knowledge to be known.


Ah, the textbook straw man argument. Where in my arguments did I propose that “God exists”?
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:07 am

Fanman wrote:“1+1 = 5” and “absolute perfection is impossible” are not within the same category of claims. The claim that 1+1 = 5 is incorrect, it would be seen as irrational and illogical to claim that it is. The claim that absolute perfection is impossible, is an assertion and must be proven in order to be a valid claim. The former claim is not debatable, the latter is.

I didn't know this was a topic of debate. If "absolute perfection" means "all-powerful", then it's contradictory since having the power of being big and small cannot exist in the same being. Every advantage has a disadvantage so there is no way of having all the advantages and none of the disadvantages just like you couldn't collect the head-side of coins while discarding the tail-sides.

In addition you need to differentiate between absolute and relative perfection.

No, I don't. In reality, the term "perfection" describes an absolute.

In 400 million years sharks have not gotten any smarter which can only mean that intelligent sharks are not favored by natural selection; therefore the intelligence of sharks is optimal and perfect. In that way, everything that exists is perfect because it is the result of countless selection processes which honed the perfection that exists.

There are indeed two ways of speaking about perfection, depending how you define your terms.

because only the empirical can be claimed as knowledge

I know you're replying to prism with that, but it reminded me of Goethe who said "Thinking… is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas."

I posit there is nothing that is not empirical because all empiricism is conceptual. You aren't looking at a tree, but a concept in your mind that you think is a tree. Do you *see* what I mean? (By seeing what I mean, that is empirical observation according to myself and Goethe, apparently). Deduction and empiricism is the same thing. There is no such thing as a priori either.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:07 am

Serendipper,

I didn't know this was a topic of debate. If "absolute perfection" means "all-powerful", then it's contradictory since having the power of being big and small cannot exist in the same being. Every advantage has a disadvantage so there is no way of having all the advantages and none of the disadvantages just like you couldn't collect the head-side of coins while discarding the tail-sides.


I don't think that something being “all-powerful” is necessarily contradictory, as something can be “all powerful” and be big or small. Something not being big and small doesn't mean that it isn't "absolutely perfect", but I think that conclusion depends on what we perceive as something being "absolute perfection". Also, in terms of something being "all powerful" I don't agree that every advantage has a disadvantage, what would be the disadvantage of being “all powerful”?

There are indeed two ways of speaking about perfection, depending how you define your terms.


I agree, and perhaps there are more than two, but not (I don't think) in the way that Prismatic has expounded. To my understanding if something is perfect, it describes the maximal state that something can achieve – the absolute. I understand that there is relative perfection, which means that the perfection being described is relative to a condition or relative to something else, but I don't make a distinction between “absolute perfection” and “perfection”, because perfection necessarily describes an absolute. So the term “absolute perfection” is the same as saying that there's an “absolute, absolute.” It implies that something can be “more perfect”, than perfect which doesn't seem correct to me. The term "absolute perfection" is used for emphasis, but to me it doesn't mean anything other than perfection.

I know you're replying to prism with that, but it reminded me of Goethe who said "Thinking… is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas."


That's no problem, Goethes' quote makes sense to me.

I posit there is nothing that is not empirical because all empiricism is conceptual. You aren't looking at a tree, but a concept in your mind that you think is a tree. Do you *see* what I mean? (By seeing what I mean, that is empirical observation according to myself and Goethe, apparently). Deduction and empiricism is the same thing. There is no such thing as a priori either.


I see what you mean, but IMV a tree is something which exists both outside of me, and as a concept in my mind. Why do you think there's no such thing as a priori?
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:20 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Why "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect?"
Due to psychological desperation, the idea of God was invented [conjectured].
What?

Your conclusion is that god does not exist, that god was invented.

But here you are using the "fact" that god was invented to justify one of your premises. Your premise is based on your conclusion. That makes your syllogism circular.
Study my full argument properly.
IOW, you don't have a response.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]