God is an Impossibility

The above presumed God exists somewhere and God is real.

The idea of God exists as real has always been merely a hypothesis.
Since the idea of God emerged into human consciousness [from animism, polytheism to monotheism], there has been no proofs that God is real.

It is so obvious that theists are unable prove God exists as REAL that they push the argument to one that is based on reason and subsequently more ‘sophisticated’ reason [cosmological argument, etc. ] culminating in an ontological God - an absolutely perfect God - which is an impossibility.

It is not rational to state the above because the hypothesis [God exists as real and ontologically] is not tenable at all in the first place. As such the question of the idea of a God as perfect [absolutely] is a non-starter and moot.
Therefore we do not have to ensure God exists as real [empirically] so that we can assess whether God is perfect or not.

Again, being a die hard Theist , another, different way of presenting an opinion will be attempted.

What god is, pertains to cognitive constructions of ideas formed by ritual, based on myth or Reversely, ritual based myth.

There is substance to ritual and myth, and they pertain to both, rational and so called irrational” content. Now reel foreward to modernism and beyond. The superconscious is developing out of superconscious compilation of memory.

It is beyond discussion, that given a survivable time for humanity, super memory-consciousness will eclipse and overcome human memory by many many fold of power.

This will become a repository, not of matter, since by that time all matter may be reducible to pure energy, based on a temporal universal imminence, which would preclude questions about the creation of matter mute and irrelevant to the underlying question of inquiring of what ‘existence is comprised of’. Therefore nothing ever is created or destroyed.

If aGod can be understood as a quantum memory whose set comprises another, then another, approaching small possible sets, then this super repository can curve space time and return to the beginning, which instantly becomes imminently analogous, so near identical with this curve backward, that the perfect ontological perimeter is created, for ever.

Now if this is conceivable, then the beginning, where the word describes the beginning of creation, of belief, may have transferred to primitive man by a conduit, which can only be understood, by higher levels of revelation, then was available back then, which really is still only now, except we understand it as a transcendence.

As per Hume there cannot be a conduit from OUGHT to IS.
Your end result is transcendental but it is not related to any empirical possibility, thus what is transcendentally possible in your case is never empirically possible.

Yes, there is substance to rituals and myths. Note for example the Myth of the Buddha Story, the substance is collectively the old man, the sick man, the corpse [mortality] which are all existential crisis materials and the monk representing a non-theistic solution to soothe the related existential angst.

The above existential crisis is generic to all human beings but unfortunately theists were compelled ignorantly & outwardly toward theism [God is an impossibility] and thus theism’s baggage of negatives and evils.

To resolves the terrible evils and violence by SOME theists we need to trace the ultimate root causes, i.e. the psychological existential crisis and deal with it effectively.

By conduit, I was not referring to a deferral against Hume’s ideas, and there are some in Philosophy who do not poin to the problem caused by what is\or should be. The conduit is not iffy like that, it is, rather, the underlying forces generated by physics and metaphysics.

The mathematical basis of physics , when it predisposes metaphysics, which is grappling with the empirical logic’s incompleteness, in terms of a reductive, or referential logical system, is not yet clarified do to many other variables which have not yet been referred to a satisfactory understanding which can unite all the partial functional understanding of what is at stake.

Empirical specialists struggle for pre eminently to position themselves into more advantages and superior positions, and use hypothetical paradigmns to beat each other to those positions.

What a mistake that is remains to be seen, and to categorize modern partial functions as if they were simply attachable disassociated partial circuitry is using mistaken hypothesis.

It is not to say that computer analogies of that high caliber are never to be discovered in the future, but until then , a viable truth machine does not yet exist to give an ultimate verdict on the infallibility of inferential, rather then referential logic.

So on those grounds, I may sustain my opinion, which incidentally gives an analogous interpretation of ideas purporting a regression into myth , for these purposes.

In other words, it seems to me, You are advocating a total uselessness of metaphysical considerations so that to buttress up a total and absolute rationale for science.

What I am saying is, even if, science can get there, to that place where a total vindication is possible, and it point point to a final and successful impartiality between various factions of knowledge, even then, You may be at a disadvantage to prioritize one from the other, vis. Physics, over metaphysics. The reason for that, is, at that point causation will break down, and all temporilization as well.

But the question then, as is now should be posed, at what point will science loose the courage to ask, if, the end point to reach such an effort will result in a God filled eternity, or the coming of the reign of the Beast.

As some of the talk of demonology in various forums here seems to put a damper on discussion of other than a strictly archaic explanations, consensus among the well versed Gnostics seem to go the other way, and go at least to the point Nietzche arrived- beyond the problem.

Well, for starters, those physicists you think that I worship as priests.

Again, this is what I call a classic “general description” argument. The argument consist entirely of words defending other words. The extent to which they are applicable to the world we live in is never, ever addressed until someone is willing to go up into the stratosphere with you and duel over definitions.

No, somehow or other you are going to have to come up with a way in which to bring RM/AO and the Real God onto a platform in which those who own and operate science today have no choice but to either falsify it or to embrace it in turn.

Until then [as with me and dasein] you will flail away at a teeny, tiny audience of folks with virtually no chance that your own “intellectual contraption” sees the light of day. To a broader audience as it were.

My whole argument though is that, while it is always fascinating to speculate about these things, the existence of God would seem to fall into that yawning gap between what any particular individuals think they know [or profess to believe] about God, and all that would need to be known in order to know this.

In the interim, what we are doing here then is grappling with the gap between what folks think they know [or profess to believe] about the existence of God, and that which they are actually able to demonstrate [empirically] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Otherwise it all devolves [re James and his ilk] into dueling definitions and deductions.

The tricky thing here though is that there may well be theists out there who have in fact proven that God is real. But what counts [here] is that this person’s proof becomes known to us.

One thing would seem certain though. If such a person is out there, he or she has chosen to keep this proof to him or herself? Why? Because if such proof ever did get out [on youtube or facebook for example] that’s all any of us would be talking about 24/7.

Also, there may be billions of other planets out there in our staggeringly vast universe with civilizations advanced enough to grapple with the very ontological/teleological explanation for Existence itself. It seems foolish then to confine the discussion merely to Earth.

And that’s before we get to God [perfect or not] and the multiverse.

These are wishful thinking and speculations. What counts is; bring the evidence or empirical-rational arguments, else no point speculating at all.

God created the Universe with Earth therein.
Therefore the God that is spoken of anywhere in the Universe must be the same God all its believers speak of. Thus a discussion of God within Earth is sufficient to understand the idea of God and to confirm God exists is so easy, just bring the direct evidence.

If you are referring to human-liked higher intelligence existing somewhere in the Universe. Human-liked is empirical and empirically possible, but we know the possibility of such aliens existing is negligible to likely Zero. Thus your proposition related to this has near-zero credibility at present.

Beside why must an all-powerful God hide itself that only 100x time more intelligent being can only know it? It is so simple, just bring the direct evidence.

I have proposed the basis for the emergence of the idea of God is due to psychological factors. It would more easier and viable to research from the psychological perspectives within human [readily available for research] rather than waiting for direct evidence of God and finding evidence of human-liked aliens some billion of light years away. This is crazy.

Besides the non-theistic spiritualities, e.g. from Eastern spiritualities had already embarked on non-theistic approaches to resolve the human issues theistic doctrines are trying to tackle.

In addition, in resolving the same inherent existential crisis, the theistic path is full of ‘potholes’ of negatives, terrible terrors, evil & violence arising from its evil laden elements in their holy texts.

OTOH, non-theistic Eastern spiritualities like Buddhism are fully pacifist without elements leading and inspiring believers to commit terrible evils and violence.

Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.

Probably.

But more to the point [mine] the existence of God is a constellation of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge [embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts], that have, here and now, there and then, coagulated in minds such that we believed/believe what we did/do about it.

But what is that next to all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that in fact God does or does not exist.

Just because we are not shown the evidence does not mean that the evidence is not there. Thus we are all “stuck” until it can in fact be demonstrated definitively one way or the other.

Whatever that means.

At best, the No God folks can [in my view] reasonably argue it is incumbent upon the God folks to demonstrate that what they claim does in fact exist does in fact exist. Either that or fall back on faith.

And yet there may well be civilizations on other worlds that conceive of God in ways that have never even occurred to folks here on earth. They may be so much more advanced than we are that their thinking about God may in turn be all that much more sophisticated.

Instead, when I think of God and the universe, the thing that most intrigues me is why He deemed it necessary to make it so staggeringly vast. The more we learn about it the more mind-boggling it gets. Was God behind the laws of nature or must God be in sync with them?

No, “we” don’t know this. You think that you do. But any number of folks who spend their lives thinking about it [astrophysicists for example] speculate that there are almost certainly billions upon billions of planets “out there”. Thus their proposition would seem to carry considerably more weight than yours. They would ask you what empirical evidence do you have to support your claim? And then they would show you theirs: exoplanets.nasa.gov/the-search- … ife-signs/

Again, I am generally in agreement with you here. I just have no illusion that I am any more capable of providing direct evidence for a No God universe. Just that those who do believe this seem more obligated to provide the evidence. Especially given the fact that immortality, salvation and divine justice itself are at stake re the looming shadow that is the abyss.

And Eastern religious narratives are no less confronted with this. There is how we choose to behave on this side of the grave, and what our fate is to be on the other side of it. And how the two are intertwined. Either Western or Eastern religionists address this point or they don’t.

But that is still basically my own interest in God and religion: How ought one to live?

It’s just that, with God, the speculation doesn’t end at the grave.

On the contrary, in the absence of God, rationality quickly devolves into any number of conflicting “humanistic” and “nihilistic” philosophies [and political agendas]. And there is plenty of “negative and evil” baggage about when these titanic entities clash. For example, liberal vs. conservative, capitalist vs. socialist, I vs. we vs. them.

It depends on what type of evidence we are expecting.
If we are expecting evidence of empirical-based things, then we cannot discount its possibility. I can agree there is a possibility of a tea-pot [empirically possible] flying somewhere out there in space billion of light years away. But this probability would be very low.

But if we are referring to God, it is not empirically-based at all. God is a philosophical idea churned out of primal reason and thus is an illusion. Note Kant’s

Based on higher critical philosophical reasoning we can conclude God is an impossibility, thus is no question of evidence for God in the first place.

No matter where the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic will apply.
Other civilization and their entities will share the same Universe and the ultimate absolutely perfect has to be same in substance regardless of how its forms are interpreted.

Why don’t you turn around [like Copernicus] to human_ness and your own self [instead of out there] to understand why humans are thinking of God in the way they do. This way is more manageable than the infinite Universe which in one sense could be an illusion [nothingness in the Buddhist Way].

Note I agreed human-liked aliens [with empirical elements] are empirically possible.

I agree but it is only in the present state that the secular is in quite a mess, but its knowledge base is expanding exponentially.
I am looking into the future with optimism as we have already mapped the full human genome and moving on to map the brain’s circuits plus knowledge is advancing in so many other fields.
With more sophisticated knowledge we will be able to dig deep to understand the human brain in relation to human existences and its problem. This is the basis for my point;

“Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.”

That is easy. You have fabricated an either/or conceptual utopia where by every iota of matter can be classified into one or the other of your prescribed categories. I’m pretty sure that falls into one or another logic fallacies. And OH, gosh I did it too. So let’s look it up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The false dilemma occurs if their is at least one other possibility. And I would claim their is… "WE DON’T “KNOW” (absolutely everything and questionably anything) Which means the notion of an “absolute perfection” can be loosely paraphrased as “the cumulative best GUESS we have”. That sucker ain’t pointing anywhere near “perfection” by these accounts.

I realize if god were perfect, this sort of thinking does follow. What would happen if god isn’t/wasn’t/will-never-be perfect? How does that eliminate said god from being a creator? We humans create shit all the time and man or man that does make us perfect any more then it would make the possibility of a god.

Your argument requires a god to be perfect, my idea of god does not (I would have to presume I know what is absolute, and I honestly can’t intellectually get myself there.) Granted that is not the indoctrinated notion of what religion defines god as. Maybe it is the mechanisms of power and self prescribed authority and theocratic rule that has it wrong.

That entity god is a flipping genius. We humans as a species have never managed any creation that demonstrates such ambiguity. Roughly looking at a really big picture. What we can only imagine as the entire universe was created in such a way to leave that one question floating out there. We were created as a perfection seeking machine. If we can’t find “it” “out there” we make it up. And then if all is going well in god land we “discover” something “new” It’s really been there all along it is nothing new. It is only something new to our awareness. Why didn’t we see it before? The only thing that has changed over time is the population and there are a lot more people that can be aware. New shit is bound to pop up.

My argument can be summarized by two phrases 1) we don’t ‘know’ what we think we do, 2) number one changes.

My argument is the idea of God is inherently driven towards an absolutely perfect God. This is evident in the evolution of the idea of ‘god’ from animism, to polytheism to monotheism then to an ontological God [Islam, St. Anselm], i.e. the an absolutely perfect God.

As you had stated below;

As I had stated the idea of a God inherently has to be an absolutely perfect Being not as something real but the point is the majority humans are compelled psychologically to believe in a made-up God and they made it up to be absolutely perfect.

If ‘your’ god isn’t/wasn’t/will-never-be perfect [absolutely perfect] then your lesser than perfect God is inferior to another/others and will have to kiss the ass on another’s God who is claimed to be absolutely perfect.

Thus when cornered all normal theists will naturally claim [revise] for their God to be absolutely perfect to avoid having to kiss the ass of another’s God and leaving no room at all to be dominated by another God. Thus ultimately if theism, it has to be based on an absolutely perfect God.

The above support my P2, why God imperatively must be an absolutely perfect God and not any lesser. If theists are ignorant [at any time] of the weakness of believing a less than perfect God, they will eventually definitely revise their belief when cornered [evident by the evolution of the idea of God over history]. Changing a belief is so easy, just change their mind to the favored belief, viola!

As for P1, I had demonstrated why an Absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real in contrast to empirically-based relative absolutes or perfection [e.g. 100% score in an objective test].

It’s true of course that what would actually constitute hard evidence for God’s existence will vary among different folks. But if someone were to announce that God had conveyed to him or her a promise that for an entire month no child would starve to death on planet earth, and, then, for an entire month, no child did in fact starve to death on planet earth, well, that would work for me.

Again, in my view, you assert this as though by the fact of asserting it that makes it true. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demostrate this empiraclly. Any more than Kant, in suggesting that in order to sustain the relevance of his categorical imperative [one rendition of a deontological morality] the existence of God [the transcending font] was imperative. As though this proves the existence of God.

The existence of the universe – multiverse? – is still embedded in profoundly problematic ontological [teleological?] mysteries that only the most foolish of scientists would argue are now within our grasp.

Or are we to believe as some do that it is possible “logically” to explain why something exists rather than nothing? Or why it must be this something and not some other?

Using “the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic”, encompass for us a definitive explanation for why Existence [this Existence] is all around us.

Okay, “philosophically and wisely” note a particular existential crises that besets the human race [in the is/ought world] and expound on what you construe [here and now] to be the more [or even the most] effective resolution.

In other words, in a world sans God.

I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

As I had stated, I not merely asserting, but I have explained and justified the relevant P1 and P2 in my argument.
What Kant proposed is it is possible for ‘God’ to exists within his framework of morality. Such a god is not an absolutely perfect God but qualified to morality.
Kant stated categorically in his Critique of Pure Reason, it is impossible to prove the existence of God absolutely.

The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.
While there is the above main pro and other secondary benefits from theism, it is double-edged and has its terrible negatives of evils when SOME evil prone theists commit terrible evils when inspired by the evil laden words of God in some holy texts.
At present humanity already has alternative non-malignant approaches [from Eastern spiritualities] without evil laden elements in its doctrine to deal with this terrible angst.
Therefore if we have foolproof non-theistic alternative why should we settle for theistic approaches that has negative side effects.

How do you know that it is not caused by God?

It doesn’t matter how you “defined” God … here you have empirical evidence of God. This is a discovered God, not a mentally constructed God.

I realize the you define “God” as a human construct which you insist must be thought of as perfect and that your entire syllogism only applies to that particular definition. But that’s not the general concept of God. God is known by His actions in/on the world which are revealed by prophets and by logical reasoning. In this example, that’s exactly what appears to have happened. Why attribute it to aliens?

Have you talked yourself into believing that God does not exist and therefore nothing can be the work of God?

It seems that, for you, there can never be sufficient evidence of God’s existence.

How do you know that the race of “aliens” was not “absolutely perfect”?
You don’t, because you still don’t know what “perfect” means.

I agree an empirically based God is a possibility. But such a possibility is extremely low, perhaps 0.000…01% based on our current knowledge base.
In addition an empirically based God will end up with an infinite regression!

Note this post in another thread to explain why ultimately God must be an absolutely perfect God.
styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif

Any counter to the above argument?

As I had stated, the “aliens” must be human-liked in another planet [location] billion of light years away. All these are empirically based elements and thus can be empirically tested by us. To prove it conclusively all one need is to bring the empirical evidence to be tested and verified.

Because these so claimed aliens are empirically-based they cannot be absolutely perfect [as a transcendental ideal].
If one claims an ‘absolutely perfect being’ out there in the universe, then that by definition has to be an absolutely perfect God, a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.

Wait. First, you claimed that these aliens performed a “miraculous” feat (very miraculous). So they were certainly not “human-like”. Why not “god-like”??

No, wait again. Where have you proven that “empirically based” truths cannot be “absolutely perfect”???

That is what intelligent people call “tautological”, a type of useless/pointless statement.

No science or “empirical evidence of perfection” can be gained until you define, in some useful, realistic form, what “perfect” means. Saying that there is “absolute” and “relative” perfection is NOT defining what “perfect” means. I gave you a definition (one which you will never be able to contest), but you refused it, so it is up to you.

You are STILL failing on the most fundamental level.

I said to be empirically possible, whatever must have empirical elements.
The only possible empirical agency of greater power than humans we can link to is human-liked.
What was speculated was “miraculous” relative to what human can do. You can say it is 'god-liked" but in this case it is not God per-se. Whatever is it like, if it is empirically possible, it must have empirical elements.

You have to read the thread again.
Generally what is empirical based cannot be absolutely perfect which is transcendental and beyond the empirical.

Didn’t you catch the definition,
“an absolutely perfect God = a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.”

Your counter is too shallow.
I have already given you a basic definition of ‘perfect’ from the dictionary with an extension to perfect = absolute, total, and unqualified.
Btw, do you understand what is absolute, total and unqualified?

My meaning of perfect cover the full range from the empirical [qualified] to the absolute [unqualified].

I have explained the term ‘absolutely perfect’ arise out of psychological impulses and such a term is at best a thought which cannot be represented by anything in reality, thus an impossibility.

That seems kind of silly. Are you under the illusion that no being can be greater than human???
Wow … :confused:

And btw, to the LDS Mormons, God IS “human like”.