God is an Impossibility

Your meaning of ‘Perfect’ has a semblance to the dictionary’s meaning, i.e.

but why do you ignore the additional meaning ‘absolute, complete.’ ?

In any case your idea of ‘perfect’ is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, i.e.
your “The concept of “Perfect” is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal.” is not tenable because you cannot get a 100% exact match within empirical elements.
In addition, the term ‘ideal’ imply an empirical-rational impossibility.

Now when you apply your term ‘perfection’ to an absolutely perfect God, it is already an impossibility to start with.

The quality of God as I am claiming is God has an overall quality quality of absolute perfection. As I have shown your term ‘perfection’ is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

On top of the quality of absolute perfection, God is attributed as being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience and whatever ‘omni’ that a theist assign to his God. Another question how are you to prove these ‘omni’ traits of God within an empirical-rational reality?

Point is whatever traits and qualities are assigned to God, it cannot be lower than being in an absolutely perfect state which I have shown is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

As I had asked many times, what other basis of reality [other than on moral grounds, hallucinatory, illusory, psychiatric, theological faith,] can you show me that God is a possibility as real?

When will you ever learn?

How can you be SO stupid?
Poorly understood by others do not mean poorly argued by Descartes.
Many of QM theories are poorly understood by many Physicists and non-Physicists.

You cannot be that ignorant, the term ‘perfect’ is commonly attributed directly and indirectly to God within the theistic community. Just do a google for ‘perfect God’.

Because if you had a lick of sense, you could see that they don’t add anything to it, as many have repeatedly told you.

Bullshit, but you STILL haven’t specified the standard or ideal.

Only to the naive such as yourself. I don’t have a problem with it, nor most scientists.

Just a repeat of your logic fallacies … geeezzz.

Perfection is a RELATIVE TERM. You have to relate it to some ideal for it to have meaning.

Saying “absolute meaningless” doesn’t really help your case.

I agree perfection is related to something, it need not be an ideal to start with.

Thus when I used the term ‘perfection’ is imply perfection in relation to X [whatever that is].

I had claimed a qualified ‘perfection’ within empirical rational reality is a possibility. e.g. if someone state 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples that is a ‘qualified’ perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality.

However if any one insist 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is an ideal perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality, that is an impossibility, e.g. if the apples are of different species, the more accurate answer would be = 1 red apple + 1 green apple.

Now when you attempt to have perfect match to an ideal [which itself is a perfection] then you have double the problem, i.e.

An ideal perfection in relation of an ideal [perfect] X.

In above cases, those sort of perfection presented are impossibilities in an empirical-rational reality.

You have very serious semantics issues.

Modifiers to category items are irrelevant to the categorical logic involved (ie it doesn’t matter what kind of apple).

The “ideal” is merely whatever you declare. It could be merely a “perfect” match to your blue shirt, yellow underwear, girlfriend’s personality, …

Now an “absolutely perfect” (a redundant term) God is perfect in WHAT SENSE?? Perfect in WHAT WAY? Perfect at doing WHAT???

As I had stated your philosophical thinking it very shallow and narrow. To bring in any semantic justifications in this case is philosophically childish.

When you see two apples the following are true [facts] but qualified to the perspective and conditions;

  1. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples - common sense and basic arithmetic.

  2. Existence of 1 green apple + 1 red apple = by color

  3. Existence of 1 granny smith apple + 1 Washington red apple = by variety

  4. Existence of two bundles of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. - by Science

  5. Existence of X numbers of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. in motion and in space.

  6. Other valid perspectives …

The point is you cannot deny the truth of the above statements as qualified within the specified perspectives.

Point is these statements could be perfect description of the the qualified truth but they cannot be an absolute perfect truth that is true under all perspectives.

“ideal” = “what is declared” you got to be joking!!!

Note these meanings from a dictionary;

In philosophy, the ideal is related to Plato’s Form.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

The rationality is a theist MUST claim absolute perfection for a God by default as I had argued, no theist will want their God to be dominated by another and thus ending up with that inferior God having to kiss the ass of another absolutely perfect God. This is why the term ‘absolutely’ is a necessity in this case to reflect the ontological quality of a perfect God, i.e. “a God than which no greater or more perfect can exists.” This is the super Ace Card all theists must hold.

With the generic ontological principle attributed to God, this state and quality is attributable to any claim for God by any theist.

Thus a theist may claim his God is “the absolutely perfect creator than which no greater nor more perfect creator can exists”.
Note such a claim is made by theists, not me.
What I am claiming is such a God is an impossibility within empirical rational reality.
As I had presented, perfection if any within empirical rationality is always relative thus an absolutely perfect God which MUST exists for a theist [as claimed by thought only] cannot be possible within an empirical-rational reality.

You are imagine your stance and understanding of ‘perfect’ is an Ace Card, but it is actual a dud.

.Dup

Oh give it a break. You are one of the most shallow new-age drones I have run across at this site. And now, as is often attempted, you claim any concern for the meaning of your words is “just semantics”, because of course we all know that the meanings of your words are arbitrary anyway.

YOU JUST STATED, “When you see two apples”. Thus your (1) isn’t “common sense”, nor arithmetic. It was your hypothetical PREMISE.

Totally, 100% irrelevant to the logic that you saw TWO apples; “When you see two apples…” And whatever details there are concerning the apples are NOT “Perspectives”. They are category item details and irrelevant to the premise.

"Under all perspectives"??? What kind of excuse making bullshit is that?
Oh if I choose to be a complete jackass idiot and ignore logic, then there might be more or less than two apples. I’m FREE!!! I’m FREE!!”.

The term “absolutely” is redundant. And you STILL haven’t related the word “perfect” to whichever standard or ideal you have in mind. And now you add, “greater”. GREATER THAN WHAT??? GREATER in WHAT WAY?? Greater at DOING WHAT???

Saying “whatever the theist is claiming” (sloughing blame onto the theist) does NOT answer the necessary question. But even worse, you can’t argue against that theist because he never answered it either.

That’s not my point though. There is also the gap between all that you experience from the cradle to the grave [in relationship to the existence of God] and all that you would need to experience in order to demonstrate definitively the impossibility of a God, the God existing.

You are basically in the same boat as the theist. What “I” thinks it knows here and now vs. whatever explanation there is for the existence of Existence itself.

It just seems more reasonable to me that, among mere mortals, there is a greater burden placed on those who make a claim for the existence of something; that, in other words, they are under a greater obligation to demonstrate how and why all rational humans ought to make the same claim.

But: “for all practical purposes” neither party is able to demonstrate that God or No God is the optimal frame of mind.

Yet it gets even trickier than that because such an actual demonstration may have in fact already been accomplished — it just hasn’t gotten around to either you or me.

Here though it seems reasonable to surmise that had God or No God been demonstrated definitively, that is all anyone would be talking about.

From my frame of mind, your own rendition of the “root” here is just one more existential contraption. A subjective leap of faith predicated on a particular set of scholastic assumptions that you make about the nature of human psychology vis a vis all that would need to be known in order to wholly synchronize it with an ontological understanding of Existence itself.

Not unlike the leap that Kant himself made:

And I would remind you that however it might be argued that Kant must be understood here, you either tell the murderer where the woman is hiding or you don’t. And you give us a reason why. Then others can argue the extent to which it is or it is not in sync with whatever reason they imagine that Kant would give, given whatever answer they imagine he would or would not provide to the murderer.

It’s what you do then that counts. And whether you can demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to do the same.

From my frame of mind, any answer a mere mortal gives in a world sans God is a particular rationalization embedded/embodied in “I” as an existential contraption; and at any particular time and in any particular place out in any particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

From my vantage point, however, this is just an intellectual contraption describing another intellectual contraption.

It is only when one makes an actual attempt to demonstrate how for all practical purposes this would work out in the world of conflicting value judgments [precipitating conflicting behaviors that precipitate actually consequences perceived as either good or bad by any particular individuals] that it really becomes relevant in exploring the existential parameters of the “human condition”.

Thus…

Okay, but: discard Kant’s transcending font, and how are human behaviors not then judged by one or another rendition of humanism? Some from the left, some from the right. But all eventually taking an existential leap of faith to one or another set of political prejudices.

And, for the sociopaths and the nihilists, once the transcending font is dispensed with, everything revolves around one or another self-serving rationalization, or one or another rendition of “show me the money”.

Still, that does not bring you any closer to closing the gap between what you think you know about God/No God here and now and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that this is in sync with the optimal or the only rational understanding of Existence itself.

At best you can argue that you are in fact able to explain Existence qua Existence [Being qua Being] but that I am not able to grasp this.

Here I can only imagine you outside an abortion clinic noting the above to those on both sides of this at times ferocious debate/conflict. These folks are in the grip of any number of fierce emotional and psychological reactions. Which, technically, may or may not be described as “existential angst”. And, sure, for some, God settles it. For others one or another secular dogma. But, still, the bottom line remains: What would Kant tell them?

Imagine him broaching the idea of a “net-evil” to them. As though mere mortals in a world sans God can actually calculate that here with any precision. So he takes his own existential leap of faith in concocting his own intellectual contraption God.

Okay, so there is then a gap between rules not raised blindly and out of nowhere and rules that reflect the political prejudices of those in power at any particular historical, cultural and experiential juncture.

Yet Kant is really no better equipped than the rest of us in drawing the lines here. Not without his transcending font.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Look around you … the universe … life. Amazing and incredible.

It’s not hidden. It’s not an abstract idea in your head. It’s real (and empirical).

Yet for the atheist, it’s not a demonstration of God or evidence of God.

Explain that. :laughing:

Laugh all you want. Sexual stratification dictates that if it were addressed to equalize the distribution in a global intentional community, that we’d have more peace and not have been born in this context, if we have souls, but every being in a more peaceful context. That fact raises questions.

Okay :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Peace is a decision.

You are lost here.
It is obvious there are at least the different common sense and scientific perspectives and sub-perspectives.

Note the meaning of ‘perspective’

There is no question of ignoring logic at all. What is that you are yelping in this issue?

I have given an example in the post regarding God as the Creator, i.e. who is the greater creator and thus the theist God has to be a creator than which no greater creator can exist. Read my post again!

Note theists are claiming all sorts of attributes for their God, there is no way I can list all of them other the tri-Omni and a few common claims.
But the general point is, whatever the claim, say X, they made for their God, the presupposition is there is no greater God who can perform a greater X than their so-believed God.
I gave the example of the claim of God as a greatest creator, which presuppose that there is no other God which can be greater creator than the theist’s God.

I see the problem with your views is you are assuming there is a gap between

  1. X - which is empirical and rationality and
  2. a presupposed Y [all there is & God] that exist - which is only in thought and by pure reason.

One point of logic is you cannot conflate P1 and P2 because they are stated in different senses and thus this would be a fallacy of equivocation.

To make a valid sylllogism both premises must be in the same senses, i.e. in this case ‘empirical’.
The problem here is how can you be sure Premise 2, i.e. y [God and all there is] is even empirically possible.

Therefore in this case, your idea of a Gap is a non-starter because your P1 and P2 are in different ‘senses’ [not re sensual btw].

From the above I am not in the same boat as the theist.
The theist conflate and equivocate two different senses [in this case re ‘existence’] within his/her syllogism.
I am only sticking to what is empirical and the empirically possible.

The above point is not relevant to the non-theist.
The theist makes a presupposition God exists without being able to prove it within empirical-rational reality.
The non-theists stance is indifferent to the idea of God or existence of God. As far as the non-theists is concern the question of existence do not arise at all. IF there is no question of ‘existence’ at all, why should the non-theist bother.

Why the non-theists bothered with theism are the real consequences of evils from theists arising from the belief in an illusory God. Note innocent non-theists are being killed for merely not agreeing with the theists’ belief in an illusory God.
This is why for me, the question of God is redirected to the related psychological factors driving theist to believe in an illusory God.

Anyone can speculate on anything, what matters is the evidence and proofs.

Not in terms of logic and rationality.
As I had shown above the hypothesis ‘God exists’ is a non-starter due to the fallacy of equivocation in conflating premises of difference ‘senses’ thus cannot deductive.

My OP is not an existential contraption.
It is a syllogistic argument with sound deductive conclusion, i.e. God is an Impossibility, and thus a non-starter to deliberate within an empirical-rational reality.

This is like a battle between ‘reason’ versus ‘reason’, albeit pure primal reasoning versus refined higher cortical reasoning.

Per Kant, the idea of God arose from the very Nature of Reason and they are sophistications of Pure Reason. The idea of a God is due to very subtle sophisticated ‘deception’ of the mind [for a desperate psychological reason] to lead the theists to believe God is real when it is actually an illusion.

Kant has used the higher refined higher cortical reasoning to outwit the above primal pure reason to prove God is an illusion.
There is a saying in Buddhism, ultimately reason [higher cortical] must kill reason [lower primal] itself so that one can actualize the truth.

So mine is not a whatever-contraption but rather a sound deductive argument to overcome the pseudo-deductive argument of the theist re God exists.

Note Kant’s System of Morality & Ethics is not expected to achieve results immediately.
Kant’s Kant’s System of Morality & Ethics will produce results when certain conditions are met.
One main condition is the average Moral Intelligence [MQ] of humanity must be at least say 100 times the current Moral Intelligence where the average person will rational adopts Kant’s system.
For example if the average IQ of humanity at present is say 90, imagine what humanity will be able to achieve if the average IQ of humanity is say 300! [> Einstein’s].

The question is, it is possible to increase the average Moral Intelligence of humanity 100 times the current MQ. Based on another thesis on this question, I am optimistic this is possible within the next >100 >150 >200 years but we have to lay the foundation at the present and thus such discussion.

One point about Kant is he is very thorough and he laid down many other conditions to ensure his Moral and Ethics System will be effective.

I do not agree it is an intellectual contraption.
It is nevertheless a hypothesis that is very feasible based on rational arguments and empirical clues.
I have given example of the moral practice of the banning of slavery by ALL Nations. There are many other examples of a smaller scale along the principles of Kant’s model that is being practiced and progressing.

The question is how to get to the apply Kant’s Morality and Ethics Model to all aspect of humanity’s morality and ethics.

As I had stated Kant’s Morality and Ethics System targets to increase simultaneously the MQ [Moral Intelligence] of the average human 100 time greater than the current average.

As such there should be a project of humanity that addresses ALL evils from the whole spectrum of humanity including religious-based evil I had been discussing here. This will include addressing the problematic sociopaths, and others who are evil prone.

All humans will in the future co-operate based on good shared values naturally and spontaneously without being forced or coerced into it.

Note my earlier argument in the first of this series re you cannot presuppose there is a God, until you have proven God exists. But as I had proven God is an impossibility and a non-starter.
In addition, note Meno’s Paradox where you cannot take for granted there is something unknown to be known, it is more problematic for an unknown without empirical possibility.

Note the thread I raised on ‘What is Dasein?’ I am interested what is your conception of ‘Dasein’. I have read a lot on Heidegger but do not have a good grasp of his philosophies.
If I am not mistaken Heidegger’s view is humans are ‘thrown into’ existence. Such a view can lead to problems because the implied metaphors [Lakoff and Johnson] like the ‘container’ metaphor where things are thrown “into” some container. This naturally to lead to linking ‘existence’ with some thing, but the reality is there is no thing in the first place. It is only this default metaphor [thus psychology] that compel one to relate to some thing ending as a reified thing from no thing.

Thus philosophically one should not be overly insistence with ‘God exists’ or ‘God do not exists’ but rather faced “reality” as an emergence that unfold interdependently with the subject-as-no-thing.

Kant will not tell them anything other than declaring there is a potential to avoid such a mess in the future when his Morality and Ethics System in put into practice progressively.

From Kant’s POV of view, what we can do at present is to do the best and prevent the worst evils wherever possible. If we cannot then we have to accept whatever the outcome.

What Kant will be asking is, how can we prevent such existing evils in the future and his solution would be to start establishing the foundation now with the expectation of effective progressive results to come in 50, 100, and to plateau within 200 years.
This is done without having to believe God exists as real within an empirical-rational reality.

Yes, it only seems to you.
There is no Universal standards at present, but it not very difficult to establish universal standards and progressively improve on it.

First we need to produce a full list of all known and possible evils acts of humans.
Re degrees of evilness, if we rate genocides at the highest at 99/100, murder at 80/100 and petty crimes at 5/100, it is not too difficult to rate those acts of evil in between the highest and the lowest to arrive at a first draft for further deliberation to arrive at sufficient consensus. Note this is within the midst of a continual progressive trend in the increase of average Moral Intelligence and other intelligences within humanity.

What was Kant’s conclusion regarding his own morals?

“In other words, belief in a God and in another world is so interwoven with my moral sentiment that as there is little danger of my losing the latter, there is equally little cause for fear that the former can ever be taken from me.” — Immanuel Kant

This seems to blow a hole in Spectrum’s — I mean Prismatic567’s — reasons for idealizing Kant.

Wow. I would really like to see that list.
You should start a thread on it.