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 Fanman » Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:43 am

Prismatic,

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect


This doesn't seem right to me. How can you simultaneously argue that absolute perfection is impossible and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect? In my view, it seems contradictory. If you believe that absolute perfection is impossible, you cannot then argue that God *must* be absolutely perfect, because you are appealing to a qualitative standard that you're arguing cannot exist. Even if you're arguing on the basis of what theists may claim, you still hold the position that absolute perfection is impossible (and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect) – therefore in your view, an absolutely perfect God cannot exist (or is impossible), because absolute perfection is an impossibility. In this case, the statement “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” doesn't make sense.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:14 pm

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect


This doesn't seem right to me.


P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect...so that Prismatic can take the next steps in his deduction.

As has been pointed out to Prismatic over and over, there are plenty of theists who do not believe God is absolutely perfect in some mathematical sense. In fact many have fallible Gods. And this even includes Abrahamic deities. The OT has a lot of subtext that we are dealing with a fallible deity with emotional swings who can experiment, get upset at what he creates, change his mind. The NT has Jesus doubting God on the cross. There is a wide tradition in Judaism which include complaining about God's choices. There are gurus who get upset at God, one in particular who would run out of his quarters to yell at the sky when a favorite follower died. These were all monists. It gets even more clear with polytheists (which includ people who are also monotheists, a paradox I am sure is beyond Prismatic), indigenous people and all sort of modern outside-the-church theists.

Yes, many theists will say god is perfect. Though the actual texts and the mysterious tend to use poetic language, talk about unfathomable greatness, how far beyond us god is.

Just because many theists take this in mathematical terms - often when pressed by atheists, but also because of some idiotic theologians in the Middle ages - and we get these idiotic discussion of can God make a stone he cannot lift and all the other mathematical omni discussions which in the end Prismatics are a subset of, does not mean that a deity would have to be absolutely perfect....

nor does it give us the slightest idea

by
what
criteria

perfection

would be measured.

Since 'being perfect' is always perfect for someone or something. IOW it is contigent and subjective.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:08 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect


This doesn't seem right to me. How can you simultaneously argue that absolute perfection is impossible and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect? In my view, it seems contradictory. If you believe that absolute perfection is impossible, you cannot then argue that God *must* be absolutely perfect, because you are appealing to a qualitative standard that you're arguing cannot exist.
Even if you're arguing on the basis of what theists may claim, you still hold the position that absolute perfection is impossible (and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect) – therefore in your view, an absolutely perfect God cannot exist (or is impossible), because absolute perfection is an impossibility. In this case, the statement “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” doesn't make sense.

You are lost and got twisted in the above.

Here is a simple analogical example;

    Say you claim;
    A square-circle exists as real, in addition,
    Whatever the circumstances, a squared-circle MUST be of shape-X.

    However I have demonstrated your imperative 'shape-X' is an impossibility.
    Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility.

Applying the above to the idea of God;

    Theists claim God exists as real, in addition,
    Whatever the circumstances, God MUST be of absolutely perfect ontologically as per St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.

    However I have demonstrated the imperative 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility in reality.
    Therefore God as real is an impossibility.
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 Mowk » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:34 am

Well you have proved it to yourself anyway. What if the picture is yet incomplete? This effigy can't be.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 7:08 am

Mowk wrote:Well you have proved it to yourself anyway. What if the picture is yet incomplete? This effigy can't be.

Humbly there is no absolute certainty.
My argument is complete subject to the above humility.

I had not stopped with my 'complete' argument.
I had provided the explanation why theists resort to clinging to an idea of an impossible God, i.e. as driven by an existential crisis.
In practice, there are many who claimed to have had direct experiences with God, but they all have some kind of mental issue from mild to serious.
A direct experience with God can be induced with drugs, hallucinogens, and whatever the circumstances, etc.

In addition, Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies has identified the root cause of the idea of God and taken non-theistic strategies to deal with the root cause.

There are many other explanations on why theists resort to cling to a God as a security blanket.

Thus we should not ignore these alternative views to how the idea of God arose within human consciousness.

Not only that, the plus side to humanity is, with the explaining away of the idea of God and weaning-off theism [when alternaltives are available], humanity will be able to eliminate all forms of theistic-driven terrible evil and violent acts that had beset humanity ever since the idea of God emerged. [note >270 million non-believers killed in the name of an illusory God].
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 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 7:55 am

Prismatic,

Say you claim;
A square-circle exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, a squared-circle MUST be of shape-X.


Note that this idea has come from you, not me.

A "square-circle" does not have a shape, so it cannot be claimed that it MUST be a shape.

However I have demonstrated your imperative 'shape-X' is an impossibility.
Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility.


You have constructed and deconstructed your own idea here. No one has claimed that a square-circle has a shape. So I don't think that it works as an analogy.

Theists claim God exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, God MUST be of absolutely perfect ontologically as per St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.


My point is, you have argued why God must be absolutely perfect, but it doesn't make sense to argue both that God must be absolutely perfect and that absolute perfection is impossible.

If absolute perfection is impossible, why must God be absolutely perfect?

Theists can claim that God is absolutely perfect, but as we have discussed, this is a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement, not a fact or quantity that can be disproved.

However I have demonstrated the imperative 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility in reality.
Therefore God as real is an impossibility.


There are problems with this claim. Don't you see any?
Last edited by Fanman on Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:02 am

i.e. as driven by an existential crisis.

A condition of life, what's the crisis?

Humbly there is no absolute certainty.

Yes, I get some sense we agreed on that.

And again I am in agreement that a lot of what humanity has done and continues to do in the name of a god is repugnant, and cause of great suffering. But that fault lies squarely on human shoulders. Those that would harm need no reason, but will use any reason for it's political ends and as means. You are thinking rather simply minded, if you think humanity needs a theistic reason to have done what it has. It uses the convenient, and emotionally driven religious zeal is very convenient, but often religion has little to do with god actually. We all can't even agree on what a god is. That's a powerful political tool. A god didn't give any part of this earth to any part of humanity. But as long as there has been violence it has involved control of territory. In the name of god is a lie used for that end. That is the god you have argued as impossible. And I agree, that god is impossible as real. I just think you're tugging on the wrong end of the rope.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:34 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

Say you claim;
A square-circle exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, a squared-circle MUST be of shape-X.


Note that this idea has come from you, not me.

A "square-circle" does not have a shape, so it cannot be claimed that it MUST be a shape.

That is the point.

A "square-circle" is merely a thought and has no reality.
It is the same with, "absolute perfection" which is merely a thought and has no reality.

Thus my point is "absolute perfection" cannot be claimed to be true as real as claimed by the more advanced theists.

However I have demonstrated your imperative 'shape-X' is an impossibility.
Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility.


You have constructed and deconstructed your own idea here. No one has claimed that a square-circle has a shape. So I don't think that it works as an analogy.

Note my point above.

Yes, in reality there is no shape to the square-circle, but someone [analogically] insist there is such a shape and explained it in various ways, e.g.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... le.svg.png

The analogy is someone has claimed a square-circle must have a shape-X, i.e. which is merely a thought but not possible in reality.


Theists claim God exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, God MUST be of absolutely perfect ontologically as per St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.


My point is, you have argued why God must be absolutely perfect, but it doesn't make sense to argue both that God must be absolutely perfect and that absolute perfection is impossible.

If absolute perfection is impossible, why must God be absolutely perfect?

Theists can claim that God is absolutely perfect, but as we have discussed, this is a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement, not a fact or quantity that can be disproved.

The point is theists claim their God is real and absolutely perfect.
Regardless whether you called that "a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement" [I don't agree on this], the point is such an absolutely perfect is impossible to be real.
Therefore there is no real absolutely perfect God who had sent prophets and messenger, created the universe, listens to and answers prayers.
In this case, there is no justified grounds for theists to claim it is a real God that commanded them to commit certain divine acts.

If absolute perfection is impossible, why must God be absolutely perfect?

You got this wrong.
It is that theists claim their God is REAL and absolutely perfect that God is impossible to be real because 'absolute perfection' to be real is an impossibility.

However I have demonstrated the imperative 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility in reality.
Therefore God as real is an impossibility.


There are problems with this claim. Don't you see any?

What problem?
You have not presented any justified arguments at all.
What you have presented above is very convoluted, try present them more rigorously and logically.
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 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:53 am

Mowk wrote:
i.e. as driven by an existential crisis.

A condition of life, what's the crisis?

I have discussed this at length elsewhere.
Don't intend to do it here.

Humbly there is no absolute certainty.

Yes, I get some sense we agreed on that.

And again I am in agreement that a lot of what humanity has done and continues to do in the name of a god is repugnant, and cause of great suffering. But that fault lies squarely on human shoulders. Those that would harm need no reason, but will use any reason for it's political ends and as means. You are thinking rather simply minded, if you think humanity needs a theistic reason to have done what it has.
It uses the convenient, and emotionally driven religious zeal is very convenient, but often religion has little to do with god actually.
We all can't even agree on what a god is. That's a powerful political tool. A god didn't give any part of this earth to any part of humanity.
But as long as there has been violence it has involved control of territory. In the name of god is a lie used for that end. That is the god you have argued as impossible. And I agree, that god is impossible as real. I just think you're tugging on the wrong end of the rope.

I see your thinking is more simply minded, narrower and shallower than mine.

The root cause of all religions is the existential crisis.
In the theistic religions, this is where theists are driven to seek the after-life and eternal life to soothe the terrible mental pains exuding SUBLIMINALLY from the existential crisis.
This potentially generate the most terrible evil and violent primal drive within SOME humans.
Note Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his son to God for his own personal selfish salvation.
So you can imagine what the rest of the theists will be willing to do for a God to ensure their personal selfish salvation.

What more when it is a God that commanded believers to war against and kill non-believers under vague conditions of threats. This is documented within the holy texts of the Quran as commands from Allah in exchange for a promise of eternal life in paradise. [Evidence available]
As such a percentile of Muslims (if 20% = a pool of 360 million) will zealously comply with this command to war and kill non-Muslims in order to be doubly assured of eternal life in paradise. This real consequence of evil and violence is so evident within the 1400 years history of Islam.

Yes, there will be political elements who will exploit the above, but these are secondary issues which must be addressed political.
We however cannot ignore the primary cause of these evil and violence, i.e. directly as commanded by a God.

Btw, read this carefully from the horses mouth, i.e. the primary reason why non-Muslims are killed is because they are disbelievers and their foreign policies or whatever is merely secondary or excuses;

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads:
2. "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563


The above points are supported by verses directly from the Quran.

I note you are merely waving your views without much depth on knowledge of religions and human nature.
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 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:15 am

Prismatic,

That is the point.

A "square-circle" is merely a thought and has no reality.
It is the same with, "absolute perfection" which is merely a thought and has no reality.


In my view, these examples are not the same category.

Thus my point is "absolute perfection" cannot be claimed to be true as real as claimed by the more advanced theists.


You have both claimed and argued why God must be absolutely perfect, whilst holding that absolute perfection is impossible. Therefore it is you who are giving shape to the square-circle.

Yes, in reality there is no shape to the square-circle, but someone [analogically] insist there is such a shape and explained it in various ways, e.g.

The analogy is someone has claimed a square-circle must have a shape-X, i.e. which is merely a thought but not possible in reality.


No one has though, not in a geometrical sense. And I don't believe that anyone would. Claiming that a square-circle has a shape and that God is absolutely perfect are not analogous in my view.

The point is theists claim their God is real and absolutely perfect.
Regardless whether you called that "a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement" [I don't agree on this], the point is such an absolutely perfect is impossible to be real.


If perfection isn't a “subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement” then what do you think it is?

You got this wrong.
It is that theists claim their God is REAL and absolutely perfect that God is impossible to be real because 'absolute perfection' to be real is an impossibility.


? You have argued both that “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” and that “absolute perfection is impossible”. Now you're shifting the burden to theists, as though the claim that “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” isn't yours, and a position that you haven't held and defended?

What problem?


If you don't see any problems then fine. I won't bother telling you what I think they are.

You have not presented any justified arguments at all.


Who is the arbiter of what constitutes justification? The same person who believes this “However I have demonstrated the imperative 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility in reality.” and doesn't see any problems with such a claim?

I think not.
Last edited by Fanman on Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:28 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

That is the point.

A "square-circle" is merely a thought and has no reality.
It is the same with, "absolute perfection" which is merely a thought and has no reality.


In my view, these examples are not the same category.

Thus my point is "absolute perfection" cannot be claimed to be true as real as claimed by the more advanced theists.


You have both claimed and argued why God must be absolutely perfect, whilst holding that absolute perfection is impossible. Therefore it is you who are giving shape to the square-circle.

You keep repeating this straw-man.

I Did NOT personally claim that God must be absolutely perfect.
I am presenting the point that the theists claimed their God is real and absolutely perfect and by implication MUST be absolutely perfect. I have explained why this is so in the OP and elsewhere.

Yes, in reality there is no shape to the square-circle, but someone [analogically] insist there is such a shape and explained it in various ways, e.g.

The analogy is someone has claimed a square-circle must have a shape-X, i.e. which is merely a thought but not possible in reality.


No one has though, not in a geometrical sense. And I don't believe that anyone would. Claiming that a square-circle has a shape and that God is absolutely perfect are not analogous in my view.

An analogy is merely a clue to the point.
If you do not agree, we can forget about it.

The point is theists claim their God is real and absolutely perfect.
Regardless whether you called that "a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement" [I don't agree on this], the point is such an absolutely perfect is impossible to be real.


If perfection isn't a “subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement” then what do you think it is?

I look at it this way.

Everything that is agreed upon by a group of people is inter-subjectively agreed.
A scientific fact is an inter-subjective judgment and this is empirically grounded.
Absolute Perfection is not a fact but it is an inter-subjective judgment which is merely reasoned but not empirically grounded.

When one claim absolute perfection [non-empirical] is real [empirical], that is a contradiction.
Thus the claim that God is real and absolutely perfect is a contradiction and an impossibility to be real.


You got this wrong.
It is that theists claim their God is REAL and absolutely perfect that God is impossible to be real because 'absolute perfection' to be real is an impossibility.


? You have argued both that “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” and that “absolute perfection is impossible”.

It is not me who argued “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect.”
That is the theists' claim, not mine.
The "imperatively MUST" is implied within 'absolutely perfect'.

What problem?

If you don't see any problems then fine. I'm won't bother telling you what I think they are.

I will only respond to justified-counters, if not, I will not bother.

You have not presented any justified arguments at all.

Who is the arbiter of what constitutes justification? The same person who believes this “However I have demonstrated the imperative 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility in reality.” and doesn't see any problems with such a claim?
I think not.

There are the normal attributes of what constitute justified-arguments.
The most convenient is using a syllogism or list of premises that are sequitor to the conclusion and each premises is reasonable and supported by evidence and proof.

Note an example my recent argument in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=2753767#p2753767

    P1 A human woman is a real person who can be impregnated biologically.
    P2 God is an impossibility to be real - see link below.
    C3. Therefore a real woman getting pregnant by an impossible-to-be-real-God is an impossibility or oxymoron.

I always make it a point to present my main argument in a syllogism it provide some sort of structure to make it easier for others to counter and critique.
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 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 11:27 am

Prismatic,

I Did NOT personally claim that God must be absolutely perfect.


You have claimed, argued and defended that position. This is evidenced when others have pointed out that God need not be absolutely perfect, but you have insisted that it must be.

I am presenting the point that the theists claimed their God is real and absolutely perfect and by implication MUST be absolutely perfect. I have explained why this is so in the OP and elsewhere.


So God MUST be absolutely perfect because some theists claim that it is?

Absolute Perfection is not a fact but it is an inter-subjective judgment which is merely reasoned but not empirically grounded.


The attribution of absolute perfection can be based upon empirical observation (things that we can observe through the senses), the judgement is qualitative and subjective. You don't have to agree that something someone perceives as absolutely perfect is, but to claim it isn't empirically grounded is in my view, incorrect.

It is not me who argued “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect.”
That is the theists' claim, not mine.
The "imperatively MUST" is implied within 'absolutely perfect'.


You have. Not in the sense that you're arguing God exists, but in relation to your argument.

You stated in the OP (and have subsequently argued);

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


This is your reasoning and your claim.

There are the normal attributes of what constitute justified-arguments.
The most convenient is using a syllogism or list of premises that are sequitor to the conclusion and each premises is reasonable and supported by evidence and proof.


When you state “However I have demonstrated the imperative 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility in reality.”

What is the justification for this claim, as per your description of justified arguments?
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:25 pm

An interesting retort, but you continue to miss a delicate point and pull on the wrong end of the rope.
It ain't a gods fault, it's humans that are to blame, and you continue to get the two confused.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:02 am

Prismatic,

When one claim absolute perfection [non-empirical] is real [empirical], that is a contradiction.
Thus the claim that God is real and absolutely perfect is a contradiction and an impossibility to be real.


Hmm. If someone claims that something empirical is absolutely perfect; since you are claiming that to do so is necessarily a contradiction; by which law would you argue that it isn't? Which law precludes absolute perfection from existing in reality? Note, I am not asking what you think here, but for the law which justifies your above claim.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:45 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

I Did NOT personally claim that God must be absolutely perfect.


You have claimed, argued and defended that position. This is evidenced when others have pointed out that God need not be absolutely perfect, but you have insisted that it must be.

I am presenting the point that the theists claimed their God is real and absolutely perfect and by implication MUST be absolutely perfect. I have explained why this is so in the OP and elsewhere.


So God MUST be absolutely perfect because some theists claim that it is?

Absolute Perfection is not a fact but it is an inter-subjective judgment which is merely reasoned but not empirically grounded.


The attribution of absolute perfection can be based upon empirical observation (things that we can observe through the senses), the judgement is qualitative and subjective. You don't have to agree that something someone perceives as absolutely perfect is, but to claim it isn't empirically grounded is in my view, incorrect.

Nope whatever is empirically grounded by default cannot be absolutely perfect.
I have already argued whatever is empirically grounded can ONLY be relatively perfect.

It is not me who argued “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect.”
That is the theists' claim, not mine.
The "imperatively MUST" is implied within 'absolutely perfect'.


You have. Not in the sense that you're arguing God exists, but in relation to your argument.

You stated in the OP (and have subsequently argued);

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


This is your reasoning and your claim.

There are the normal attributes of what constitute justified-arguments.
The most convenient is using a syllogism or list of premises that are sequitor to the conclusion and each premises is reasonable and supported by evidence and proof.


When you state “However I have demonstrated the imperative 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility in reality.”

What is the justification for this claim, as per your description of justified arguments?

You are still insisting on your straw-man.
I never claimed "God imperatively must be absolutely perfect" - that is the theists' claim.
Note this;


    PI. [mine]: Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.
    P2. [theists']: God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
    C.. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

See the point?
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 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:50 am

Mowk wrote:An interesting retort, but you continue to miss a delicate point and pull on the wrong end of the rope.
It ain't a gods fault, it's humans that are to blame, and you continue to get the two confused.

You are stating a faultless-God exists as real without proofs?

Firstly, it is humans to be blamed for reifying God as real - when in fact the idea of God is merely a thought thus illusory -,
then secondly, theists commit terrible evil and violent acts in the name of the illusory God.

Thus if we resolved and get rid of the first blame, i.e. wean theists off the belief in God, then there will be no more [ZERO!] God-driven evil and violent acts.
It is critical humanity should deal with God-driven evil and violent acts which is of all things is grounded merely on an illusion :o .

There will be other evil and violent acts from political, social, psychological, etc. basis which must be dealt with respectively within their specific context.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:25 am, edited 2 times 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 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:59 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

When one claim absolute perfection [non-empirical] is real [empirical], that is a contradiction.
Thus the claim that God is real and absolutely perfect is a contradiction and an impossibility to be real.


Hmm. If someone claims that something empirical is absolutely perfect; since you are claiming that to do so is necessarily a contradiction; by which law would you argue that it isn't? Which law precludes absolute perfection from existing in reality? Note, I am not asking what you think here, but for the law which justifies your above claim.

It is not a law, but the argument as follows;

    1. Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences.
    2. As such, what is empirical is conditioned [related] by the human conditions.
    3. What is conditioned [related] cannot be absolutely perfect.
    4. Therefore whatever is empirical [conditioned/related] cannot be absolutely perfect.

The above is why scientists will NEVER claim their empirically-based theories are absolutely perfect.

Note the relevant meaning of 'absolute' for this case;

    Absolute = viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
    -Google dictionary

Just in case, empirical is;

    Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

What is 'absolutely -perfect' is based on theory and pure logic.
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 phyllo » Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:19 am

That means that the object of observation could be absolutely perfect but the observer does not see it as absolutely perfect. The observation is faulty not the object.

Therefore God could be absolutely perfect.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:51 am

phyllo wrote:That means that the object of observation could be absolutely perfect but the observer does not see it as absolutely perfect. The observation is faulty not the object.

Therefore God could be absolutely perfect.

The apple-on-the-table is the object-of-observation.
Is God ever an object-of-observation or entity-of-observation?

Even for the apple-on-the-table, it can NEVER exists as absolutely-perfect.
The state of an apple changes at every second from fruiting to ripening, to rotting and disappearing into various matters and molecules.
As such there is no absolutely-perfect apple.
Thus if God can be observed by humans, God can NEVER be absolutely-perfect.

Yes, God could be absolutely perfect, but only from pure, crude, pseudo logic.
The idea of God as absolutely-perfect is derived from pure logic, thus not empirical.
Since the idea of God is not empirical, it cannot be real empirically and philosophically.
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 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:43 am

Prismatic,

It is not a law, but the argument as follows;

1. Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences.
2. As such, what is empirical is conditioned [related] by the human conditions.
3. What is conditioned [related] cannot be absolutely perfect.
4. Therefore whatever is empirical [conditioned/related] cannot be absolutely perfect.


Instead of "but" you should use the term "my". So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Even if what you're saying is reasonable. Also, I'm not fully able to make sense of what you're saying, but it seems as though 2 through to 4 are all "laws".

The above is why scientists will NEVER claim their empirically-based theories are absolutely perfect.


Which scientists? This would imply that there is a law. There is no such law I've heard of. This is again, your reasoning. Couldn't the case be that the term "absolutely perfect", is just not scientific?

Is God ever an object-of-observation or entity-of-observation?


How could you know whether or not the being purported to be God (which one?) has ever been an object or entity of observation?

Also, I think that Phyllo is right.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:51 am

Prismatic,

Even for the apple-on-the-table, it can NEVER exists as absolutely-perfect.
The state of an apple changes at every second from fruiting to ripening, to rotting and disappearing into various matters and molecules.
As such there is no absolutely-perfect apple.


Interestingly, where do you perceive an imperfection in that process?
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:58 am

Prismatic,

One more thing. Do you think that scientists don't use the term "absolute perfection" to describe their theories, informally? :lol:
Last edited by Fanman on Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:43 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

It is not a law, but the argument as follows;

1. Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences.
2. As such, what is empirical is conditioned [related] by the human conditions.
3. What is conditioned [related] cannot be absolutely perfect.
4. Therefore whatever is empirical [conditioned/related] cannot be absolutely perfect.


Instead of "but" you should use the term "my". So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Even if what you're saying is reasonable. Also, I'm not fully able to make sense of what you're saying, but it seems as though 2 through to 4 are all "laws".


The above is why scientists will NEVER claim their empirically-based theories are absolutely perfect.

Laws are more official, e.g. Newton's Law, etc.
The above are generally accepted statements, e.g.

"Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences."
I have already provided the definition for the term 'empirical' and this is recognized within philosophy.

So you are really weird in questioning me on this;
    "So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Also, I'm not fully able to make sense of what you're saying ..."

Which scientists? This would imply that there is a law. There is no such law I've heard of. This is again, your reasoning. Couldn't the case be that the term "absolutely perfect", is just not scientific?

You are ignorant of this norm and how Science works?
It is the standard approach [scientific method] to Science that scientific theories cannot be "absolutely perfect."
Note in one case, Karl Popper stated, scientific theories are at best polished conjecturals and no scientist would dispute that.

Is God ever an object-of-observation or entity-of-observation?


How could you know whether or not the being purported to be God (which one?) has ever been an object or entity of observation?

Also, I think that Phyllo is right.

I am asking a question?
If any one were to insist God is an object-of-observation or entity-of-observation, then bring the argument and justifications or better, the evidence.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:47 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

Even for the apple-on-the-table, it can NEVER exists as absolutely-perfect.
The state of an apple changes at every second from fruiting to ripening, to rotting and disappearing into various matters and molecules.
As such there is no absolutely-perfect apple.


Interestingly, where do you perceive an imperfection in that process?

I am not making any claims of imperfection or absolute perfection.

Anyone who claimed absolute perfection [of God or an apple] is real will have to provide the proofs.
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 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:59 am

Prismatic,

Laws are more official, e.g. Newton's Law, etc.
The above are generally accepted statements, e.g.

"Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences."
I have already provided the definition for the term 'empirical' and this is recognized within philosophy.

So you are really weird in questioning me on this;
"So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Also, I'm not fully able to make sense of what you're saying …"


Hmm. Given that what I stated can actually be read. Questioning you on what specifically?

If you alter the text, context, meaning and application of what people say, it can seem weird. Wasn't that your intention though, in doing so? To make it seem as though I had questioned the nature of empiricism?

In this case, I believe that the paragraph I wrote has to be read as a whole to convey its meaning. If you take parts out of it or put it in a different context, it doesn't function as I intended.

You are ignorant of this norm and how Science works?
It is the standard approach [scientific method] to Science that scientific theories cannot be "absolutely perfect."
Note in one case, Karl Popper stated, scientific theories are at best polished conjecturals and no scientist would dispute that.


I believe that the implication of my awareness, was shown when I stated that the term “absolute perfection” is unscientific.

I am asking a question?


I don't think it was unreasonable to infer that your question was rhetorical. Given that you've argued that it is impossible for God to exist.
Fanman
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron