God is an Impossibility

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”.

I never said the above.
You missed my point.

What I stated is;
It is possible for beings to be real and greater [in power, whatever] than human beings on Earth.
However to be possibly real, such being must have at least basic empirical anthropomorphic qualities, e.g. the bearded man in the sky.

If it does not have human physical qualities, it must at least have human like agency and consciousness. If such aliens are identified as non-empirical, then it has no emprical basis and cannot be proven [empirically and rationally] to be real at all.

Thus is it possible to have human-liked [the most basic] aliens [empirically based] who are highly intelligent existing somewhere billions of light years away. Perhaps what is going on in our known Universe is merely a reality-TV show for them! We can speculate on anything for them as long as they are empirically based. The ultimate is the production of empirical evidence to prove their objective existence.
It has to be empirically based so that its existence can be confirmed [empirically and rationaly] if empirical evidence are produced for verification of its existence.

It could be human like but being monotheistic, it is ultimately to be more likely an absolutely perfect God which is thus an impossibility.

There are those who believe their God is monkey-liked existing somewhere in the Universe.
If they do not insist such a god is absolutely perfect, then I can accept such a god is empirically possible [of negligible probability]. So the question of realness is for them to produce the empirically evidence for a real monkey-liked to appear for empirical testing and verification. Based on current knowledge, the possibility of such an empirically-based monkey-liked god is very unlikely.

Note theists who claimed their monkey-liked god exists will naturally concede their God is not absolutely perfect as such a monkey-god [hanuman] cannot be superior to a elephant-liked God [Ganesha]. In general, empirically an elephant is more powerful than a monkey in nature.

Normally those who believe in a monkey-liked God and other empirical based Gods will also believe in one absolute supreme perfect God that dominates all other god [e.g. Brahman of Hinduism]. Such a supreme God is generally idealized as an absolutely perfect God which cannot be empirical, thus an impossibility.

True. But I can dream, can’t I? [-o<

But then we are back to connecting the dots between any particular set of premises and any particular conclusion [like Kant’s] to an actual extant God one is able to demonstrate does in fact exist. And then we are back to why anyone would be motivated to tell the “inquiring murderer” that a friend was in the house, unless they were able to convince themselves that a transcending font does see all.

Apparently, philosophically, these things can become quite convoluted: myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/InquiringMurderer.asp

Yes, that and the fact that the evolution of life on planet earth has resulted in mindful matter [the human brain] actually able to ponder why something happens one way and not another way. And that would seem inevitably to lead to this: pondering why anything happens at all.

And isn’t “God” one possible explanation?

What always staggers my mind though [above all else] is the possibility that in a wholly determined universe even this exchange itself is only as it ever could have been!!

How does “I” even begin to wrap itself around that? If that is even within the reach of “I” autonomously.

The fact of Existence Itself seems to get more and more bewildering [staggering] the vaster the universe – the multiverse? – becomes.

Again, from my frame of mind, “good” and “evil” are existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. It’s just that for the theists, they become Good and Evil, embedded in the essential will of a God, the God, their God. .

Still, until the practitioners of “Eastern spiritualities” are able to connect the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave, and that which they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave, and that which “in their head” they conceive to be God, how are they not in the same boat that the practitioners of “Western spiritualities” are in.

Here, I see very little difference at all.

In other words, the less God becomes an intellectual contraption discussed in places like this, the more He becomes a psychological contraption to comfort and console those in the face of all of the many staggering vicissitudes that follow them from the cradle to the grave.

Or: Have you talked yourself into believing that God does exist and therefore anything you are able to believe in can be seen as the work of God?

Then back to square one: What particular God demonstrated to in fact exist?

It’s either how you connect the dots in your head to the material world that we live in, or you are willing to nestle blissfully in the comfort and the consolation of what you are able to believe is true in your head.

Wow, could it really be that simple?! :-k

I don’t know why you ask the question. I have always admitted the possibility of errors. I have admitted that my thoughts about God may be entirely wrong. It’s possible that there is no god. I have written several times that if a person sees no evidence of God then he ought to be an atheist - that is the rational position.

In the spirit of Arthur C. Clarke’s “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” … advanced aliens would appear to us as gods and their actions would appear miraculous. Given your example, aliens are one possible explanation but not the only explanation. From observing the events, one would favor one explanation over another.

What I found interesting about Prismatic’s response is how quickly he jumped on the ‘alien explanation’. It seems that “God did it” was not even considered as a possibility. So for you it is evidence of God but for him it is not. I replied in order to get him to say what he would consider to be evidence of God or how he would distinguish an event caused by aliens from an event caused by God.

Alas, it looks like I’m not going to get an answer. :frowning:

And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that “being” merely means “an existence”, not “anthropomorphic”.

Also wrong. Empiricism is not the only way to prove something. Empiracism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses. It alone never proves anything. It is LOGIC that proves or disproves.

Your attempt at logic is empirical evidence that you believe that it is logic that proves or disproves. Yet you will probably argue anyway.

I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves …

What is dreamt is always conditioned to the dreamer, thus empirical.
If you dream of a God, ultimately it is still an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

Kant only stated a God can exists within the Moral Framework [as qualified] which ultimately is absolute and thus an impossibility.

Re Kant’s “inquiring murderer” this is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. It is too deep to explain and discuss here.

As I had stated above.
“The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.”
If you dig into this thesis and understand your empirical “I” [know thyself] you are more likely to get the answer and have better control of yourself than chasing eternally expanding infinities out there.

Yes, ‘god’ is one answer but it is an impulsive one like how Hume demonstrated induction is from one’s internal psychology of customs and habits from constant conjunctions.

Note I was referring to non-theistic Eastern philosophies and the question of what lies on the other side of the grave [God & afterlife] do not arise.

Again you are so shallow.
There is no reason why we cannot add additional qualities to ‘being’.
Note the popular argument from Kant, ‘existence’ is never a predicate.
‘Being’ or ‘existence’ implied existing as something, e.g. as a human being with its recognized qualities, an apple exists as a fruit, etc.

Again you are shallow.
How are Scientific Theories proven other than relying on empirical evidences?
How did a prosecutor proved a person is a murderer in court?

Yes, it alone never proves anything. Didn’t you read my point where I stated “proven [empirically and rationally]” Obviously rationally implied the use of logic and other thinking tools.

Isn’t this a mix of the empirical and the rational which I had stated above.
Example. Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.

Suggest you think deeper and come up with better counters than the above which are frivolous.

Blind following the ignorant! Think for yourself.

Note:
Being:

  1. existence.
    “the railway brought many towns into being”
    synonyms: existence, living, life, animation, animateness, aliveness, reality, actuality, essential nature, lifeblood, vital force, entity; esse
    “she finds herself warmed by his very being”

  2. the nature or essence of a person.

‘being’ is thus related to living and non-living things, or things with or without agency [action or intervention producing a particular effect.]

Since this OP is about God which must be a ‘living’ thing with agency it would be ridiculous to defined God as a non-living without agency.