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 » Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:40 am

felix dakat wrote:
Prismatic wrote:My point is the article kept mentioning Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, and did not mention God as real empirically and philosophically.

The theistic Christian authors may have presumed Kant's idea of God is real which in this case would be a contradiction. They did not argue Kant's idea of God is real.

As per the article, Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, period!

Note my analogy, of some parent's' purpose of the idea of a real-Santa [illusory and false] is merely to bullshit and please their child.


I think your repeated use of the phrase “real empirically” or “empirically real” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Kant. On top of that, you completely ignored what the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article said about Kant’s take on faith. According to Kant reality cannot be known as it is in itself. What empirical observation reveals are phenomena. The human mind structures the phenomenal universe with its own categorical order. The object itself is unknowable. Man has no necessary insight into the Transcendent nor into the world as such. He can only know things as they appear to him not as they are in themselves.

Point is you are ignorant of Kant's philosophy.
How much time have you spent on reading the full range of Kant's works?
Btw, even when one has spent a lot of time on Kant's work, they could missed the very refined nuances.

What's wrong with “real empirically” or “empirically real” in relation to Kant's transcendental ideas?
What is “real empirically” or “empirically real” is like seeing a real table, feel it, sit on the table, and doing whatever with the real table which can be solidly justified to be true.
Where is your God which can be seen, touched and justified to be true as “real empirically” or “empirically real”?

I did not ignore the authors of the SEP article totally. Their article indicate the belief [faith] in a God [not real] is valid for morality, I can agree with that. But they never proved God exist as “real empirically” or “empirically real.”
SEP should have a non-bias article on 'Kant and Religion' written by a non-religious author who is objective and rely merely on what Kant presented in his books.

Yes, what is empirically real are phenomena [as emergences not appearances] which Kant claimed are real as per his stance as a Empirical Realist. [read up Kant's CPR on this]
Kant demonstrated there is no such thing as a real noumenon or thing-in-itself.
If you try to reify and objectify the noumenon or thing-in-itself as a real thing [empirically & philosophically] then you are churning up an illusion.

But according to Kant [not me] the thing-in-itself can be termed as 'God' for the purpose of morality.
As such, Kant has set aside [not literally deny] knowledge for faith in this circumstance of the purpose of morality.

Having misunderstood Kant's epistemology, you proceed to misunderstand his religion. Kant wanted to rescue not only science from Hume’s skepticism but also religion. For Kant that included moral freedom as well as God. By restricting reason’s authority to the phenomenal world, he opened up the possibility of faith. Science could claim certain knowledge of appearances but it couldn't arrogantly claim knowledge over all reality. In this way Kant believed he had reconciled scientific determinism with religious belief and morality which depends on free will. Per Kant although one can't know that God exists, one can believe it and such faith is necessary for morality [the categorical imperative].

You are misrepresenting Kant.
Kant condemned 'religion' to his utmost contempt. Read his,



Per Kant although one can't know that God exists, one can believe it and such faith is necessary for morality [the categorical imperative].

In a way, but in more precisely manner, Kant demonstrated it is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and philosophically.
Nevertheless the "idea of God" is a necessity for Kant's Moral Framework.
This is like the idea of Santa Claus which is one useful mean to please children and companies to make money.

Note I have provided loads of quotes from Kant, but you do not understand them because you have not read Kant thoroughly and thus ignorant of Kant's philosophy in depth.

Here is another relevant quote continued from the previous quote.
Kant stated below, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, are impossible to be real empirically because they are initiated as thoughts SOLELY by Reason, but nevertheless their concepts are useful.
Analogically,
Kant demonstrated the idea of God - the pure-perfect-absolute-Entity is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically, but nevertheless this idea of God is useful for the purpose of morality.

    By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found. We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
    Kant's CPR A646 B674 - Smith

But like I said before, science has rendered some of Kant’s propositions doubtful. For example, he thought that Euclidean geometry was synthetic a priori because it worked so well for Newton's laws of physics. 20th century physics exploded Kant's assumptions about this.

Kant did his best to rely on the limited Scientific Knowledge during his time but they do not have any significant impact on his main thesis, one e.g.; God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically but is nevertheless useful of the purpose of Kant's Framework of morality.

I often lamented if only the latest scientific knowledge, e.g. neurosciences, genomics, evolutionary psychology, QM, etc., were available to Kant then, Kant would have been more precise* with his theories. *More precise but not abandoning his various theses.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:10 pm

Just thought I'd mention that Kant is neither the constitution nor the Bible nor a current scientific model.

This does not mean that discussions of Kant's ideas and positions (and the various interpretations by experts of these) is not a valid topic.

But in the end what is happening in this exchange is in part one person defending his 'Bible'. IOW there is an appeal to authority on Prismatic's part that needs Kant to have position X. If he has it, then appealing to the authority of Kant continues to 'work'. If not, not.

IOW this argument parallels what happens when an atheist criticizes the Bible as a source of knowledge.

Ironically.

It's not all that is happening, but it is a large part of the motivation.

It's not a thread about Kant.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:20 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Just thought I'd mention that Kant is neither the constitution nor the Bible nor a current scientific model.

This does not mean that discussions of Kant's ideas and positions (and the various interpretations by experts of these) is not a valid topic.

But in the end what is happening in this exchange is in part one person defending his 'Bible'. IOW there is an appeal to authority on Prismatic's part that needs Kant to have position X. If he has it, then appealing to the authority of Kant continues to 'work'. If not, not.

IOW this argument parallels what happens when an atheist criticizes the Bible as a source of knowledge.

Ironically.

It's not all that is happening, but it is a large part of the motivation.

It's not a thread about Kant.

How can you be so ignorant of what is going on in practical reality?

The default is every one who made a serious claim or proposition, in the philosophical, intellectual, rational, community and the likes will always defend their proposed thesis or hypothesis until it is proven to be false or not tenable.

Generally we do not meet a stupid person who make a positive claim and declare it is false and ignore all requests for justifications of their claim.

The point is whether one defend one's position based on critical and rational arguments with evidences [as in Science, Philosophy and other rational pursuits] or simply be dogmatic with one's position like the theists' belief in God based on blind faith.

I have maintained my intellectual integrity to ensure I defend my position of whatever [with solid arguments and justifications] until I am convinced there are rational and justified counters to prove my position is false.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:51 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Prismatic wrote:My point is the article kept mentioning Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, and did not mention God as real empirically and philosophically.

The theistic Christian authors may have presumed Kant's idea of God is real which in this case would be a contradiction. They did not argue Kant's idea of God is real.

As per the article, Kant's idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, period!

Note my analogy, of some parent's' purpose of the idea of a real-Santa [illusory and false] is merely to bullshit and please their child.


I think your repeated use of the phrase “real empirically” or “empirically real” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Kant. On top of that, you completely ignored what the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article said about Kant’s take on faith. According to Kant reality cannot be known as it is in itself. What empirical observation reveals are phenomena. The human mind structures the phenomenal universe with its own categorical order. The object itself is unknowable. Man has no necessary insight into the Transcendent nor into the world as such. He can only know things as they appear to him not as they are in themselves.

Point is you are ignorant of Kant's philosophy.
How much time have you spent on reading the full range of Kant's works?
Btw, even when one has spent a lot of time on Kant's work, they could missed the very refined nuances.

What's wrong with “real empirically” or “empirically real” in relation to Kant's transcendental ideas?
What is “real empirically” or “empirically real” is like seeing a real table, feel it, sit on the table, and doing whatever with the real table which can be solidly justified to be true.
Where is your God which can be seen, touched and justified to be true as “real empirically” or “empirically real”?

I did not ignore the authors of the SEP article totally. Their article indicate the belief [faith] in a God [not real] is valid for morality, I can agree with that. But they never proved God exist as “real empirically” or “empirically real.”
SEP should have a non-bias article on 'Kant and Religion' written by a non-religious author who is objective and rely merely on what Kant presented in his books.

Yes, what is empirically real are phenomena [as emergences not appearances] which Kant claimed are real as per his stance as a Empirical Realist. [read up Kant's CPR on this]
Kant demonstrated there is no such thing as a real noumenon or thing-in-itself.
If you try to reify and objectify the noumenon or thing-in-itself as a real thing [empirically & philosophically] then you are churning up an illusion.

But according to Kant [not me] the thing-in-itself can be termed as 'God' for the purpose of morality.
As such, Kant has set aside [not literally deny] knowledge for faith in this circumstance of the purpose of morality.

Having misunderstood Kant's epistemology, you proceed to misunderstand his religion. Kant wanted to rescue not only science from Hume’s skepticism but also religion. For Kant that included moral freedom as well as God. By restricting reason’s authority to the phenomenal world, he opened up the possibility of faith. Science could claim certain knowledge of appearances but it couldn't arrogantly claim knowledge over all reality. In this way Kant believed he had reconciled scientific determinism with religious belief and morality which depends on free will. Per Kant although one can't know that God exists, one can believe it and such faith is necessary for morality [the categorical imperative].

You are misrepresenting Kant.
Kant condemned 'religion' to his utmost contempt. Read his,



Per Kant although one can't know that God exists, one can believe it and such faith is necessary for morality [the categorical imperative].

In a way, but in more precisely manner, Kant demonstrated it is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and philosophically.
Nevertheless the "idea of God" is a necessity for Kant's Moral Framework.
This is like the idea of Santa Claus which is one useful mean to please children and companies to make money.

Note I have provided loads of quotes from Kant, but you do not understand them because you have not read Kant thoroughly and thus ignorant of Kant's philosophy in depth.

Here is another relevant quote continued from the previous quote.
Kant stated below, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, are impossible to be real empirically because they are initiated as thoughts SOLELY by Reason, but nevertheless their concepts are useful.
Analogically,
Kant demonstrated the idea of God - the pure-perfect-absolute-Entity is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically, but nevertheless this idea of God is useful for the purpose of morality.

    By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found. We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
    Kant's CPR A646 B674 - Smith

But like I said before, science has rendered some of Kant’s propositions doubtful. For example, he thought that Euclidean geometry was synthetic a priori because it worked so well for Newton's laws of physics. 20th century physics exploded Kant's assumptions about this.

Kant did his best to rely on the limited Scientific Knowledge during his time but they do not have any significant impact on his main thesis, one e.g.; God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically but is nevertheless useful of the purpose of Kant's Framework of morality.

I often lamented if only the latest scientific knowledge, e.g. neurosciences, genomics, evolutionary psychology, QM, etc., were available to Kant then, Kant would have been more precise* with his theories. *More precise but not abandoning his various theses.


I doubt you will dispute with me that Kant’s philosophy was enormously influential on the subsequent history of thought though you may disagree that it can be widely interpreted even by the academic experts since you seem to be quite certain that your interpretation is the only correct one.

Turns out the phrase “empirically real” or “real empirically” is problematic and ambiguous though. Kant has conceded that the really real i.e. "the thing itself" is unknowable. Thus, sensory data is mere phenomena. Yet, per Kant, the mind imposes it’s own order on the data. The structure we know as the “world” is not the world as it is in itself but rather the structure of our mind as the “world”.

So, in what sense can we call this “reality”? From Kant through Darwin, Freud, neuro-scientists, etc., it became evident that human thought and perception is determined, structured, and often distorted by a multiple innate, non-absolute mental “categories” including but not limited to habit, history, culture, social class, biology, language, imagination, emotion, and the unconscious. Your “empirical reality” begs the question,how the human mind can be relied upon to be an accurate judge of “reality”?

So what can we say about reality- as- it- is- in- itself? The wisest e.g. Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counsel against talking about it. The religions anthropomorphize and mythologize it. Atheists claim they don't believe in it but they can't stop talking about it and may be no less obsessed with an image of it than theists. So, here we are.

In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard's attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer's “religionless Christianity”?
Last edited by felix dakat on Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8299
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:35 pm

Prismatic,

Just thought I'd add...

Perfection is not judged objectively, it is a subjective human value judgement. A “perfect-circle” is something that would meet certain geometrical conditions; it would be an inter-subjective human observation to call that circle “perfect” - it is necessarily a value judgement. In my view, things are not perfect unless people attribute that value to them, and absolute perfection is something that human beings attribute to things, not an actual quantity that can be said to exist or not exist, the observation is based wholly upon what people perceive. So I think that your claim “absolute perfection is impossible” is your subjective viewpoint. You are arguing against what theists may think or claim about the God they believe in, with what you believe. All that you've demonstrated is your opinion.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:16 am

Double-posting
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:21 am

felix dakat wrote:I doubt you will dispute with me that Kant’s philosophy was enormously influential on the subsequent history of thought though you may disagree that it can be widely interpreted even by the academic experts since you seem to be quite certain that your interpretation is the only correct one.

Yes, Kant's philosophy was highly influential, thus labelled as one of the greatest Western philosophers of all times. I believe he is 'not one of' but THE Greatest.

The reading of Kant is divided into two major camps, i.e.

    1. -the non-analytic, e.g. Alison and others

    2. -the analytic camp non-theistic, e.g. Guyer and others
    ----2a - the theological theist camp - Stephen Palmquist, and others.

I agree totally with the views of camp 1 i.e. Alison and others.
Therefore I am not claiming my interpretation is the only correct one.
I have relied on this view to add on my argument, God is an impossibility to exists as real.

Those in camp 2 believe the thing-in-itself is a thing that exists.
The theists in camp 2a believe the thing-in-itself exists as a real thing, i.e. God.



Turns out the phrase “empirically real” or “real empirically” is problematic and ambiguous though. Kant has conceded that the really real i.e. "the thing itself" is unknowable. Thus, sensory data is mere phenomena. Yet, per Kant, the mind imposes it’s own order on the data. The structure we know as the “world” is not the world as it is in itself but rather the structure of our mind as the “world”.

Kant did not claim the "thing-in-itself" is unknowable.
The thing-in-itself is outside the realm of knowledge, so how can it be known or unknowable.
The question of 'knowable' or 'unknowable' is moot, i.e. a non-started as far as the 'thing-in-itself' is concerned.

I have quoted this many times;

    The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it [noumenon] is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

    The division of Objects into Phenomena and Noumena, and the World into a World of the Senses and a World of the Understanding, is therefore quite inadmissible in the Positive sense, 2 although the distinction of Concepts as Sensible and Intellectual is certainly legitimate.
    For no Object can be determined for the latter [intellectual] Concepts, and consequently they [noumena] cannot be asserted to be Objectively Valid.

    A255 B311 - Smith

Kant stated, the concept of the nuomenon is ONLY a Limiting Concept and cannot be taken in the positive sense in terms of knowledge.
Kant repeated the above [re noumenon] many times.
Show me where did Kant change his mind on the above thereafter in the CPR?

The noumenon is also the same as the thing-in-itself but in another perspective.
I have already quoted Kant in stating the thing-in-itself can only be used regulatively [you need to understand this term] and NEVER constructively, i.e. positively and objectively.
The thing-in-itself albeit illusory is only good for use within morality but never epistemology, i.e. knowledge to be known or is somewhere unknowable.

So, in what sense can we call this “reality”? From Kant through Darwin, Freud, neuro-scientists, etc., it became evident that human thought and perception is determined, structured, and often distorted by a multiple innate, non-absolute mental “categories” including but not limited to habit, history, culture, social class, biology, language, imagination, emotion, and the unconscious. Your “empirical reality” begs the question,how the human mind can be relied upon to be an accurate judge of “reality”?

Kant never state there is a reality out there to be known.
What Kant presented is a reality emerges interdependently with the subject [humans] i.e. objects are Given within the process of emergence, not as pre-existing externally to be perceived.

So what can we say about reality- as- it- is- in- itself? The wisest e.g. Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counsel against talking about it. The religions anthropomorphize and mythologize it. Atheists claim they don't believe in it but they can't stop talking about it and may be no less obsessed with an image of it than theists. So, here we are.

Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counselled against wishing for its existence as real as such an expectation is an impossibility and one will end up with a reified illusion.
Point is, whether the thing-in-itself exists are real or not, knowable or unknowable is moot, i.e. a non-starter.

In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard's attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer's “religionless Christianity”?

What Kant proposed 'moral-based-religion' is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio circumstances during his time and when he was under threat by the King.

Soren Kierkegaard, I believe is still theistic.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:06 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

Just thought I'd add...

Perfection is not judged objectively, it is a subjective human value judgement. A “perfect-circle” is something that would meet certain geometrical conditions; it would be an inter-subjective human observation to call that circle “perfect” - it is necessarily a value judgement.

In my view, things are not perfect unless people attribute that value to them, and absolute perfection is something that human beings attribute to things, not an actual quantity that can be said to exist or not exist, the observation is based wholly upon what people perceive.

We have gone through this before.

Circles are empirically possible because they can be observed in nature.
Note Objective = Intersubjective consensus.
A perfect circle is inferred by empirical observation of circles in nature and this supported by geometrical measurements derived from reason as mere thoughts only.
Who in the world will dispute what is the measurement for a perfect circle - there is no way for an alternative, thus there is intersubjective consensus, i.e. from subjective to intersubjective to objective.
The fact is, the perfect circle is impossible to be real empirically.
But at least, a perfect circle [impossible] is grounded on empirical observation of circles.

While a perfect circle [impossible to be real] is inferred and computed from observations of empirical circles in nature or created by humans, the idea of an absolute perfect God is not grounded on anything real at all [only by psychological drives].

While a perfect circle is related to real empirical circles, an absolute perfect God is not related to anything that is real at all.
Therefore the idea of God has no possibility of relating to anything real.

So I think that your claim “absolute perfection is impossible” is your subjective viewpoint. You are arguing against what theists may think or claim about the God they believe in, with what you believe. All that you've demonstrated is your opinion.

Nope, it is not my claim at all.

I have stated many times, the term "absolute perfection" attributable to God is done by more advanced theologians like St. Anselm, Descartes with their ontological God.
What you are trying to say is correct, i.e. these theists are highly subjective in attributing 'absolute perfection' to their idea of God.

I have argued this subjective motivation to conjure the idea of God as "absolutely-perfect" is due to terrible subliminal existential psychological impulses.

What I have demonstrated is the idea of God as postulated by theists is moot, i.e. impossible to be real.
It is not an opinion.
Rather I have backed up my view with rational arguments and justifications.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:51 am

Prismatic,

Note Objective = Intersubjective consensus.


No it doesn't.

The fact is, the perfect circle is impossible to be real empirically.


You don't seem to understand, but I don't see how I could be any clearer? Perfection is a value judgement. Perfect, applied to circles, is a term/emphasis we use to describe how accurately such a circle would comply to a specific geometrical condition. Perfection is a term used to describe how people relate to something, it is something that human beings attribute to something and it is subjective or inter-subjective, it is certainly not objective. Whatever theists claim about God is based upon their value judgements. God could be any number of things and have any number of attributes, but it is human-beings who've decided that God is perfect. Perfection is not an actual entity; it exists only in the minds of people - which doesn't mean that a being that people perceive as perfect is impossible to exist - your claim is absolute and very problematic.

Nope, it is not my claim at all.


Que? The premise of your argument is that absolute perfection is impossible. You have been arguing this for quite some time. Now you're saying that it isn't your claim? Who else has claimed that absolute perfection is impossible here?

What I have demonstrated is the idea of God as postulated by theists is moot, i.e. impossible to be real.
It is not an opinion.
Rather I have backed up my view with rational arguments and justifications.


To yourself maybe, but it is clearly your opinion.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:44 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

Note Objective = Intersubjective consensus.


No it doesn't.

If not, then what is objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective, do you agree?
But scientific knowledge which is objective is grounded on intersubjective consensus among the specific scientists peers. You dispute this?

The fact is, the perfect circle is impossible to be real empirically.


You don't seem to understand, but I don't see how I could be any clearer?
Perfection is a value judgement.

Anything with values there is a value judgement.
The question is whether the value judgement is highly subjective, reasonable justified or highly justified.
A perfect-circle within geometry is a highly justified value judgment which is objective [universal] established via intersubjective consensus.

Perfect, applied to circles, is a term/emphasis we use to describe how accurately such a circle would comply to a specific geometrical condition. Perfection is a term used to describe how people relate to something, it is something that human beings attribute to something and it is subjective or inter-subjective, it is certainly not objective. Whatever theists claim about God is based upon their value judgements. God could be any number of things and have any number of attributes, but it is human-beings who've decided that God is perfect. Perfection is not an actual entity; it exists only in the minds of people - which doesn't mean that a being that people perceive as perfect is impossible to exist - your claim is absolute and very problematic.

How do you define objective then?

    objective:
    (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The established measurement of an objective 'perfect circle' will not be influenced by personal feeling or opinions.
Therefore wherever the measure of a "perfect circle" is referred to by anyone, it is not their personal judgment based on their personal feeling or opinion but refer to a universal value measurement as a standard in geometry.

You just cannot insist in your personal subjective value judgement as what are to be the measurements for an objective perfect circle.

Nope, it is not my claim at all.


Que? The premise of your argument is that absolute perfection is impossible. You have been arguing this for quite some time. Now you're saying that it isn't your claim? Who else has claimed that absolute perfection is impossible here?

I have already stated "absolute perfection" is not my claim as an attribute to God.

I said, my claim is, the claim of God with an attribute of absolute perfection by theists, is impossible if such is God is claimed to be real.

What I have demonstrated is the idea of God as postulated by theists is moot, i.e. impossible to be real.
It is not an opinion.
Rather I have backed up my view with rational arguments and justifications.


To yourself maybe, but it is clearly your opinion.

Generally an opinion is a view blurted by someone without an justified basis, i.e. any one can expressed any opinion any time.

The above is not something I pick from nowhere but my personal belief with high conviction based on rational arguments and justification.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:01 am

Prismatic,

If not, then what is objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective, do you agree?
But scientific knowledge which is objective is grounded on intersubjective consensus among the specific scientists peers. You dispute this?


You don't seem to understand. Science deals with quantities. Inter-subjectivity in science is related to empirical observation, not value judgements.

The established measurement of an objective 'perfect circle' will not be influenced by personal feeling or opinions.
Therefore wherever the measure of a "perfect circle" is referred to by anyone, it is not their personal judgment based on their personal feeling or opinion but refer to a universal value measurement as a standard in geometry.


Without the term “perfection” we have a circle that would comply to a certain geometrical condition – that is objective. The term “perfect” wouldn't add anything to the circle or change it in any way because it is not an actual quantity. Perfect is the emphasis, it is subjective or inter-subjective, it isn't necessary.

You just cannot insist in your personal subjective value judgement as what are to be the measurements for an objective perfect circle.


I'm not, but perfection doesn't have to be universally accepted – that is the nature of perfection.

I have already stated "absolute perfection" is not my claim as an attribute to God.

I said, my claim is, the claim of God with an attribute of absolute perfection by theists, is impossible if such is God is claimed to be real.


On the premise that "absolute perfection is impossible". That is your absolute claim.

The above is not something I pick from nowhere but my personal belief with high conviction based on rational arguments and justification.


I understand what you're attempting to do, but I don't think that you're correct. In my view, perfection simply cannot be used as a premise to prove or disprove the existence of something. If perfection was a quantity, then I could see where you're coming from. But because perfection is a quality that exists only inter-subjectively, it cannot be used to as a framework to imply the non-existence of something that is claimed to be empirical.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:05 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

If not, then what is objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective, do you agree?
But scientific knowledge which is objective is grounded on intersubjective consensus among the specific scientists peers. You dispute this?


You don't seem to understand. Science deals with quantities. Inter-subjectivity in science is related to empirical observation, not value judgements.

You disputed my point 'objective = intersubjectivity.'
I asked but you did not reply nor counter, scientific knowledge is objective which = intersubjectivity.
In certain sciences, judgments are quantified [the use of ratings on emotional feelings] then it is objective based on intersubjectivity.

That a serial murderer was convicted in a certain court upon circumstantial evidences was based on the intersubjectivity consensus of the jury.

That Zozibini Tunzi won Miss Universe 2019 is an objective fact, but that was based on the intersubjective judgments of all the judges.

The degree of objectivity [confidence level] will depend on the basis relied upon.

The established measurement of an objective 'perfect circle' will not be influenced by personal feeling or opinions.
Therefore wherever the measure of a "perfect circle" is referred to by anyone, it is not their personal judgment based on their personal feeling or opinion but refer to a universal value measurement as a standard in geometry.


Without the term “perfection” we have a circle that would comply to a certain geometrical condition – that is objective. The term “perfect” wouldn't add anything to the circle or change it in any way because it is not an actual quantity. Perfect is the emphasis, it is subjective or inter-subjective, it isn't necessary.

Without 'perfection' attributed to a circle as a standard, we will have various subjective views of what is a circle.
With 'perfection' or a perfect circle as a standard, then whatever is claimed as a circle in practice can be determined as to how close it is to the standard-circle.

You just cannot insist in your personal subjective value judgement as what are to be the measurements for an objective perfect circle.

I'm not, but perfection doesn't have to be universally accepted – that is the nature of perfection.

Do you understand what is universal Geometry?
What you are saying is like, within basic Arithmetic, "1 + 1 = 2" need not be universally accepted, so 1 + 1 = 5 and others are correct. That is crazy.

I have already stated "absolute perfection" is not my claim as an attribute to God.

I said, my claim is, the claim of God with an attribute of absolute perfection by theists, is impossible if such is God is claimed to be real.


On the premise that "absolute perfection is impossible". That is your absolute claim.

It is not my absolutely absolute claim.
It is my conditional claim grounded on the arguments and justifications I provided.

The above is not something I pick from nowhere but my personal belief with high conviction based on rational arguments and justification.


I understand what you're attempting to do, but I don't think that you're correct. In my view, perfection simply cannot be used as a premise to prove or disprove the existence of something. If perfection was a quantity, then I could see where you're coming from. But because perfection is a quality that exists only inter-subjectively, it cannot be used to as a framework to imply the non-existence of something that is claimed to be empirical.

You missed the point.

The point is the more advanced theologians claim their God exists as real and is absolutely perfect. This is a contradiction.
I am arguing their claim is false i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real with absolute perfection.

In addition I am not into proving or disproving the existence of something.
What I have demonstrated is the hypothesis [postulation] "God to exists as real with absolute perfection" is moot, i.e. a non-starter because it is contradiction.
This is like claiming 'square-circle' exists as real which is obviously a moot point, i.e. a non-starter.

Btw, I have offered the justified alternative argument why theists conjure and cling to an illusory God for psychological security purposes.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:47 am

Prismatic,

Do you understand what is universal Geometry?
What you are saying is like, within basic Arithmetic, "1 + 1 = 2" need not be universally accepted, so 1 + 1 = 5 and others are correct. That is crazy.


This is a cheap shot. I haven't questioned universal geometry (where?), I said that perfection doesn't have to be universally accepted - I wasn't specifically referring to geometry when I said that, it was a general statement. I did also state "I'm not" which you seem to have missed.

It is not my absolutely absolute claim.
It is my conditional claim grounded on the arguments and justifications I provided.


The claim “absolute perfection is impossible” is an absolute one. I don't understand why you are saying that it isn't? But human-beings don't know such absolutes, so there is no choice but to argue on conditional premises - which defeats the endeavour. I think that the fact is, you can never know if what you term as "absolute perfection" is possible or impossible and there are reasons for that.

You missed the point.

The point is the more advanced theologians claim their God exists as real and is absolutely perfect. This is a contradiction.
I am arguing their claim is false i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real with absolute perfection.

In addition I am not into proving or disproving the existence of something.
What I have demonstrated is the hypothesis [postulation] "God to exists as real with absolute perfection" is moot, i.e. a non-starter because it is contradiction.
This is like claiming 'square-circle' exists as real which is obviously a moot point, i.e. a non-starter.


This seems like a red herring to me. But in giving you the benefit of the doubt all I'll say is, same difference.

With regards to the other points you made; I'll stick with what I originally stated.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:44 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

Do you understand what is universal Geometry?
What you are saying is like, within basic Arithmetic, "1 + 1 = 2" need not be universally accepted, so 1 + 1 = 5 and others are correct. That is crazy.


This is a cheap shot. I haven't questioned universal geometry (where?), I said that perfection doesn't have to be universally accepted - I wasn't specifically referring to geometry when I said that, it was a general statement. I did also state "I'm not" which you seem to have missed.
There are several errors in his attack. He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection. With no demonstration of this. Second he moves from absolute to universal. And as a side note, one could have a math that has 1+1=5.

You missed the point.

The point is the more advanced theologians claim their God exists as real and is absolutely perfect. This is a contradiction.
I am arguing their claim is false i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real with absolute perfection.

In addition I am not into proving or disproving the existence of something.
What I have demonstrated is the hypothesis [postulation] "God to exists as real with absolute perfection" is moot, i.e. a non-starter because it is contradiction.
This is like claiming 'square-circle' exists as real which is obviously a moot point, i.e. a non-starter.


This seems like a red herring to me. But in giving you the benefit of the doubt all I'll say is, same difference.
[/quote]Notice the part I bolded in his quote above yours. Prismatic says that the more 'advanced' theologians claim their goal is absolutely perfect. An atheist is deciding whose version of God and what words about God are the correct ones, any other theist's ideas be damned. He is THE expert, determining whose religious ideas are the best, then using these as the basis for his proof that any God does not exist.

This has been pointed out to him before. But here I noticed the new appeal to the authority of SOME of his opponents, ironically, to form one of the premises of his 'proof'.

It has been pointed out here also to him the naivte about the philosophy of language, religious language in general that he is using here. Why we MUST follow the ideas of certain theologians and assume that if there is a God it must be their version of it, he does not argue.

And he has performed these problematic arguments for years, as I think you know, simply going back to old defenses when new interlocuters come along.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:25 pm

KT,

I think that all of the points you raise are valid. And this one “He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection.” is one of the key ones. As you say, there is no demonstration for this, his interlocutors are just supposed to accept this as a given.

I'm not that educated, but I have a few qualifications which covered the subjects we're discussing. As you've said previously, I think that Prismatic an autodidact, which is fine. But if this is the case, there hasn't been anyone qualified to guide his education and show him where he is making mistakes or the areas he could improve in – which I feel he would be better for. At this stage however, I highly doubt that he would accept criticism or see it as constructive as he appears to be so locked within his views. Which is a shame, because as we've both stated he is very bright. As we have things, he is quite the immovable object. No matter how salient your points are, he will just try to find ways to out maneuver them. As I see things, because he just wants to win.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:59 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:I doubt you will dispute with me that Kant’s philosophy was enormously influential on the subsequent history of thought though you may disagree that it can be widely interpreted even by the academic experts since you seem to be quite certain that your interpretation is the only correct one.

Yes, Kant's philosophy was highly influential, thus labelled as one of the greatest Western philosophers of all times. I believe he is 'not one of' but THE Greatest.

The reading of Kant is divided into two major camps, i.e.

    1. -the non-analytic, e.g. Alison and others

    2. -the analytic camp non-theistic, e.g. Guyer and others
    ----2a - the theological theist camp - Stephen Palmquist, and others.

I agree totally with the views of camp 1 i.e. Alison and others.
Therefore I am not claiming my interpretation is the only correct one.
I have relied on this view to add on my argument, God is an impossibility to exists as real.

Those in camp 2 believe the thing-in-itself is a thing that exists.
The theists in camp 2a believe the thing-in-itself exists as a real thing, i.e. God.



Turns out the phrase “empirically real” or “real empirically” is problematic and ambiguous though. Kant has conceded that the really real i.e. "the thing itself" is unknowable. Thus, sensory data is mere phenomena. Yet, per Kant, the mind imposes it’s own order on the data. The structure we know as the “world” is not the world as it is in itself but rather the structure of our mind as the “world”.

Kant did not claim the "thing-in-itself" is unknowable.
The thing-in-itself is outside the realm of knowledge, so how can it be known or unknowable.
The question of 'knowable' or 'unknowable' is moot, i.e. a non-started as far as the 'thing-in-itself' is concerned.

I have quoted this many times;

    The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it [noumenon] is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

    The division of Objects into Phenomena and Noumena, and the World into a World of the Senses and a World of the Understanding, is therefore quite inadmissible in the Positive sense, 2 although the distinction of Concepts as Sensible and Intellectual is certainly legitimate.
    For no Object can be determined for the latter [intellectual] Concepts, and consequently they [noumena] cannot be asserted to be Objectively Valid.

    A255 B311 - Smith

Kant stated, the concept of the nuomenon is ONLY a Limiting Concept and cannot be taken in the positive sense in terms of knowledge.
Kant repeated the above [re noumenon] many times.
Show me where did Kant change his mind on the above thereafter in the CPR?

The noumenon is also the same as the thing-in-itself but in another perspective.
I have already quoted Kant in stating the thing-in-itself can only be used regulatively [you need to understand this term] and NEVER constructively, i.e. positively and objectively.
The thing-in-itself albeit illusory is only good for use within morality but never epistemology, i.e. knowledge to be known or is somewhere unknowable.

So, in what sense can we call this “reality”? From Kant through Darwin, Freud, neuro-scientists, etc., it became evident that human thought and perception is determined, structured, and often distorted by a multiple innate, non-absolute mental “categories” including but not limited to habit, history, culture, social class, biology, language, imagination, emotion, and the unconscious. Your “empirical reality” begs the question,how the human mind can be relied upon to be an accurate judge of “reality”?

Kant never state there is a reality out there to be known.
What Kant presented is a reality emerges interdependently with the subject [humans] i.e. objects are Given within the process of emergence, not as pre-existing externally to be perceived.

So what can we say about reality- as- it- is- in- itself? The wisest e.g. Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counsel against talking about it. The religions anthropomorphize and mythologize it. Atheists claim they don't believe in it but they can't stop talking about it and may be no less obsessed with an image of it than theists. So, here we are.

Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counselled against wishing for its existence as real as such an expectation is an impossibility and one will end up with a reified illusion.
Point is, whether the thing-in-itself exists are real or not, knowable or unknowable is moot, i.e. a non-starter.

In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard's attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer's “religionless Christianity”?

What Kant proposed 'moral-based-religion' is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio circumstances during his time and when he was under threat by the King.

Soren Kierkegaard, I believe is still theistic.


Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God. The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”. This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post. Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8299
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:56 am

felix dakat wrote:Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, Kant demonstrated all proofs of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument which is attributed with 'absolute perfection.'

This is why I raised my P2 in the OP, i.e.

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect


The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”.

This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post.

Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.


If your God cannot be found within the totality of beings, then you are alluding that your God is an inferior God or even a false God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent [absolute], so God has to be present everywhere. So an independent God is a weak God.

When your God is a thing that is separated from its creation, than, it is possible for the existence of a God which is greater than your God and thus leading to infinite regression.

For example, the Muslims will claim their God is greater than your God, how are you going to counter them or anyone who insist your God is inferior to theirs?

God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If God cannot be said to exist, then it is a non-existence, i.e. God does not exist.
That would be weird.

As I had proposed, no matter how much theists eel [twist and turn] their way to insist God exists [as whatever], there is no real God.
There are high psychological stakes involved and the reason why theists conjure [reify] an illusory God naturally is merely to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:02 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

I think that all of the points you raise are valid. And this one “He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection.” is one of the key ones. As you say, there is no demonstration for this, his interlocutors are just supposed to accept this as a given.

I'm not that educated, but I have a few qualifications which covered the subjects we're discussing. As you've said previously, I think that Prismatic an autodidact, which is fine. But if this is the case, there hasn't been anyone qualified to guide his education and show him where he is making mistakes or the areas he could improve in – which I feel he would be better for. At this stage however, I highly doubt that he would accept criticism or see it as constructive as he appears to be so locked within his views. Which is a shame, because as we've both stated he is very bright. As we have things, he is quite the immovable object. No matter how salient your points are, he will just try to find ways to out maneuver them. As I see things, because he just wants to win.

As usual, instead of counter with rational justified arguments you end up with ad hominens.

As in Science and Philosophy, it would be very intellectual immature to seek to win [like in a court].
The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one's existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:41 am

Prismatic,

The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one's existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.


There have been many counter-arguments and salient points made in this thread. Why would the case be that none of them are justified, but your arguments are justified?
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:24 pm

felix dakat wrote:
In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard's attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer's “religionless Christianity”?

What Kant proposed 'moral-based-religion' is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio
Soren Kierkegaard, I believe is still theistic.


Bonhoffer.....was most likely a theist, though there is some controversy and his beliefs, of course, have nothing to do with demonstrating what Kant believed.....
Overshadowed by the dramatic events of his life, Bonhoeffer's theology has nevertheless been influential. His theology has a fragmentary, unsystematic nature, due at least in part to his untimely death, and is subject to diverse and contradictory interpretations, sometimes necessarily based on speculation and projection. So, for example, while his Christocentric approach appeals to conservative, confession-minded Protestants, his commitment to justice and ideas about "religionless Christianity"[71] are emphasized by liberal Protestants.

Central to Bonhoeffer's theology is Christ, in whom God and the world are reconciled. Bonhoeffer's God is a suffering God, whose manifestation is found in this-worldliness. Bonhoeffer believed that the Incarnation of God in flesh made it unacceptable to speak of God and the world "in terms of two spheres"—an implicit attack upon Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms. Bonhoeffer stressed personal and collective piety and revived the idea of imitation of Christ. He argued that Christians should not retreat from the world but act within it. He believed that two elements were constitutive of faith: the implementation of justice and the acceptance of divine suffering.[72] Bonhoeffer insisted that the church, like the Christians, "had to share in the sufferings of God at the hands of a godless world" if it were to be a true church of Christ.


and yes, Kierkegaard was a theist, though he was very critical of the church. Those should no be conflated.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:41 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, Kant demonstrated all proofs of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument which is attributed with 'absolute perfection.'

This is why I raised my P2 in the OP, i.e.

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect


The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”.

This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post.

Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.


If your God cannot be found within the totality of beings, then you are alluding that your God is an inferior God or even a false God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent [absolute], so God has to be present everywhere. So an independent God is a weak God.

When your God is a thing that is separated from its creation, than, it is possible for the existence of a God which is greater than your God and thus leading to infinite regression.

For example, the Muslims will claim their God is greater than your God, how are you going to counter them or anyone who insist your God is inferior to theirs?

God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If God cannot be said to exist, then it is a non-existence, i.e. God does not exist.
That would be weird.

As I had proposed, no matter how much theists eel [twist and turn] their way to insist God exists [as whatever], there is no real God.
There are high psychological stakes involved and the reason why theists conjure [reify] an illusory God naturally is merely to soothe an inherent existential crisis.


I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I'm identifying the God symbol with being itself. Every finite being participates in being itself by the mere fact of its existence, you included. So any God that is a being depends on being itself for existence and is therefore inferior in the sense of dependence or contingency.

Being itself is in no way separate from creation or the universe of all beings. All beings participate in it. The distinction here is that between the ontic and the ontological. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE9lcWRgTOE

God symbolizes the mystery of being. Infinite regression symbolizes the abysmal nature of ultimate reality.

Every particular God of whatever religion including Islam symbolizes ultimate reality. As the Tao Te Ching recognized little can be said literally about the ultimate. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” The major religions participate in the mystery of ultimate being by means of metaphorical narratives which they hold sacred.

The psychologist in me loves to hear a subject disclose their fantasies. What sadistic pleasure you must have had at your mental image of the theist eel twisting and turning. Ha ha! I love it! =D>

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8299
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:52 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard's attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer's “religionless Christianity”?

What Kant proposed 'moral-based-religion' is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio
Soren Kierkegaard, I believe is still theistic.


Bonhoffer.....was most likely a theist, though there is some controversy and his beliefs, of course, have nothing to do with demonstrating what Kant believed.....
Overshadowed by the dramatic events of his life, Bonhoeffer's theology has nevertheless been influential. His theology has a fragmentary, unsystematic nature, due at least in part to his untimely death, and is subject to diverse and contradictory interpretations, sometimes necessarily based on speculation and projection. So, for example, while his Christocentric approach appeals to conservative, confession-minded Protestants, his commitment to justice and ideas about "religionless Christianity"[71] are emphasized by liberal Protestants.

Central to Bonhoeffer's theology is Christ, in whom God and the world are reconciled. Bonhoeffer's God is a suffering God, whose manifestation is found in this-worldliness. Bonhoeffer believed that the Incarnation of God in flesh made it unacceptable to speak of God and the world "in terms of two spheres"—an implicit attack upon Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms. Bonhoeffer stressed personal and collective piety and revived the idea of imitation of Christ. He argued that Christians should not retreat from the world but act within it. He believed that two elements were constitutive of faith: the implementation of justice and the acceptance of divine suffering.[72] Bonhoeffer insisted that the church, like the Christians, "had to share in the sufferings of God at the hands of a godless world" if it were to be a true church of Christ.


and yes, Kierkegaard was a theist, though he was very critical of the church. Those should no be conflated.


I only mentioned Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer because Prismatic567 used a text in which Kant strongly criticized ritual, superstition and the church hierarchy as an argument for Kant being an atheist whereas Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer who criticized ritual, superstition and church hierarchy radically are considered theists. :confusion-shrug:

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8299
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:41 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one's existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.


There have been many counter-arguments and salient points made in this thread. Why would the case be that none of them are justified, but your arguments are justified?

Where are the many counter-arguments that are justified?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:11 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one's existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.


There have been many counter-arguments and salient points made in this thread. Why would the case be that none of them are justified, but your arguments are justified?

Where are the many counter-arguments that are justified?


That's not what I said. You are avoiding the question, because of what the answer implies.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:40 am

felix dakat wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, Kant demonstrated all proofs of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument which is attributed with 'absolute perfection.'

This is why I raised my P2 in the OP, i.e.

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect


The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”.

This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post.

Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.


If your God cannot be found within the totality of beings, then you are alluding that your God is an inferior God or even a false God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent [absolute], so God has to be present everywhere. So an independent God is a weak God.

When your God is a thing that is separated from its creation, than, it is possible for the existence of a God which is greater than your God and thus leading to infinite regression.

For example, the Muslims will claim their God is greater than your God, how are you going to counter them or anyone who insist your God is inferior to theirs?

God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If God cannot be said to exist, then it is a non-existence, i.e. God does not exist.
That would be weird.

As I had proposed, no matter how much theists eel [twist and turn] their way to insist God exists [as whatever], there is no real God.
There are high psychological stakes involved and the reason why theists conjure [reify] an illusory God naturally is merely to soothe an inherent existential crisis.


I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I'm identifying the God symbol with being itself. Every finite being participates in being itself by the mere fact of its existence, you included. So any God that is a being depends on being itself for existence and is therefore inferior in the sense of dependence or contingency.

Being itself is in no way separate from creation or the universe of all beings. All beings participate in it. The distinction here is that between the ontic and the ontological. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE9lcWRgTOE

God symbolizes the mystery of being. Infinite regression symbolizes the abysmal nature of ultimate reality.

Every particular God of whatever religion including Islam symbolizes ultimate reality. As the Tao Te Ching recognized little can be said literally about the ultimate. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” The major religions participate in the mystery of ultimate being by means of metaphorical narratives which they hold sacred.

The psychologist in me loves to hear a subject disclose their fantasies. What sadistic pleasure you must have had at your mental image of the theist eel twisting and turning. Ha ha! I love it! =D>

My argument in the OP is,
God is an impossibility - to exists as real.
In this case, God is so real, God sent his messengers with holy words to people. In addition God listens and answers prayers, plus did and does whatever is real.
This is what is claimed for the ultimate Being of beings by Muslims, Christians and other theists.

Note, in the case of the Tao not to be spoken, it is merely a reasoned thought and not something that is claimed by Taoist to be real empirically and philosophically.

If you are not arguing for the existence of God, then you are not countering my argument, thus off topic.

Btw, you cannot simply throw in Heidegger's 'ontic versus ontological.'
You need to justify these term in an argument to counter my argument.

I did read Heidegger quite seriously but not as serious as my reading of Kant. So at present I don't have very thorough grasp of Heidegger's details. Nevertheless I am very familiar with the main themes of Heidegger.

    The expression die ontologische Differenz was first introduced in 1927, to mark die distinction between (BEING (das) Sein) and beings or entities (das Seiende) (XXIV, 22).
    'Being and the structure of being lie beyond every entity and every feature of an entity diat diere can possibly be. Being is die transcendens pure and simple' (BT, 38)
    -Inwoood

While Heidegger claim his Being and Time is unique, generally Heidegger is no different from Kant, i.e.

Kant = Phenomena versus Noumena [aka thing-in-itself]
Heidegger = Ontic [Phenomena] versus Ontological [structure of being]

In both cases the phenomena and ontic are empirically verifiable, e.g. via Science.

For Kant, the Noumena aka thing-in-itself is merely a reasoned-thought and cannot be real.
If reified as real, then it is an illusion.
This illusion is useful for the purpose of practical reason or morality.

In Heidegger's case, he never claimed the ontological is real.
If so, where did he state that?
If Heidegger insist his 'ontological' being is real, then he has to prove it.
At best, what is ontological Being of beings to Heidegger is merely a thought.
You can rely on this 'thought' for whatever reasons, but it cannot be real empirically and philosophically.

Note a critique on Heidegger;

    According to Husserl, Being and Time claimed to deal with ontology but only did so in the first few pages of the book. Having nothing further to contribute to an ontology independent of human existence, Heidegger changed the topic to Dasein. Whereas Heidegger argued that the question of human existence is central to the pursuit of the question of being, Husserl criticized this as reducing phenomenology to "philosophical anthropology" and offering an abstract and incorrect portrait of the human being.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_He ... criticisms

Heidegger was influenced by non-theistic Buddhism;

    According to Reinhard May and Graham Parkes, Heidegger may have been influenced by Zen and Daoist texts.[38][39] Some of Martin Heidegger's philosophical terms, such as Ab-grund (void), Das Nichts (the Nothing) and Dasein have been considered in light of Buddhist terms which express similar ideas such as Emptiness.[40][41] Heidegger wrote that: “As void [Ab-grund], Being ‘is’ at once the nothing [das Nichts] as well as the ground.”[42] Heidegger's "Dialogue on Language", has a Japanese friend (Tezuka Tomio) state that "to us [Japanese] emptiness is the loftiest name for what you mean to say with the word ‘Being’”[43] Heidegger's critique of metaphysics has also been compared to Zen's radical anti-metaphysical attitude.[43] William Barrett held that Heidegger's philosophy was similar to Zen Buddhism and that Heidegger himself had confirmed this after reading the works of DT Suzuki.[43]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_ ... #Heidegger

As such, Heidegger's Being and Time is not likely to extend beyond to the idea of God. At most Heidegger Being-of-being could be Buddha Nature which is not theistic.

Theists are driven by terrible evolutionary forces to grasp at an idea of God based on faith to soothe their existential crisis.
This is why it is so common [very evident] for theists to eel [twist and turn] as driven by a defense mechanism to defend their stance to sustain the soothed state. This is evident by the irrational proof churned out by theists over the history of theism.
When they run out of of ideas in "eeling", SOME will even kill others who threatened their soothed state of theism. This is so evident with laws on death for blasphemy and killing of innocents for merely critiquing the theists's religion. [you can't dispute this]

It give me no pleasure on the 'eeling' but they do generate eerie fears that such evil and violence can arise anywhere where there are theists.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users