God is an Impossibility

Re the above, there is no reference to Kant’s book.
I have mentioned many times Kant believed God is a possibility on moral grounds [not the common moral argument for God btw] and this is one point I do not agree with Kant.

The major point of Kant’s CPR is it is impossible for God to exists as real within an empirical-rational reality. In this sense, God is illusory.

Note this which I had quoted very often [mine].

I have already done that but have not organized it efficiently yet.

Note my main project is ‘Islam is Inherently Evil’ and my thesis would be very empty if I do not do a thorough research on what I meant by ‘evil’ for that thesis.
In addition I have to dig into more details [related neuropsychology, neurosciences, etc.] for each of the critical evils, e.g. genocides and the likes.
For literature review purpose I have to exhaust all research and views that are accessible to me.

And of course ignore the ones that don’t agree with you.

And of course ignore or discredit the ones that don’t agree with you.

The point is, he undermines his own philosophy and therefore yours. The quote I cited is from Critique of Pure Reason , quite fittingly near the end of the book. Is it not odd that critics of religion, like you, argue like Kant is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but ignore his conclusion?

The religious folks, however, can argue much the same thing about God. He is imagined in the minds of mere mortals here and now and one day His existence will become manifest. It’s just that for most of the faithful this manifestation occurs in the Kingdom of Heaven.

All I can do here [yet again] is to note this as a “general description”. What particular contexts in which Buddhists make claims of benefits. And you can bet there will be any number of folks lining up to argue that, on the contrary, we will benefit all the more if we think like they do, feel like they do, behave like they do.

If Buddhism “works” for someone, fine. But [from my frame of mind] it doesn’t make dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away. And mere mortals of either the Eastern or the Western persuasion are still confronted with connecting the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side of it.

That doesn’t go away either. And we know for a fact there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of contexts in which those behaviors come into conflict.

And all the self-development and meditation in the world doesn’t seem to putting much of a dent into that.

If God is the cause of change how then does this allow for human autonomy?

And how have you in fact demonstrated that this is true beyond merely asserting it is in sync with RM/AO?

Again: How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others?

Is it even possible to express this more abstractly? Note a particular context in your own life that would allow us to grasp this more clearly.

Note to others:

Again, what am I missing here? What is he telling us about the Real God that we might all be able to grasp in turn? What are you able to grasp and then convey to us more substantively?

This is like something that we might get from a horoscope: so numbingly vague that almost anything can be said to be in sync with it.

You actually do believe that it does, don’t you James?

Sure, that may well be a demonstration of God’s existence.

And if that is all that is necessary in order for you to believe in the existence of God, fine.

But why does that have to be all that it is necessary for others to believe, in turn?

And, if God, why your God? Why not James’s Real God? Why not uccisore’s ultra-conservative God? Why not Ierrellus’s all forgiving God?

And you know me: if your God, how then do you connect the dots between the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave and your imagined fate on the other side of it?

And with so much at stake here wouldn’t any actual extant God make it abundantly clear what that crucial righteous path is? Instead, we have hundreds and hundreds of conflicting narratives all laying claim to the one true God.

Explain that. :laughing:

You ask of me how it relates. I explained how it relates. You did not ask to prove it to you. I am not interested in proving anything to you in particular because that would be even more futile than trying to prove anything to Prism. Truth and logic don’t count at all. You merely incessantly preach whatever you want others to believe.

But you don’t think that it is a demonstration. And you don’t explain why.

I didn’t say that it is “all that is necessary”. You put that in.

I didn’t say that it has “to be all that is necessary for others”. What I find interesting is that it is entirely dismissed as “no evidence” and “no demonstration” by many atheists. There are hundreds of posts on these kinds of forums where atheists declare that “there is no evidence/demonstration” of God. They don’t even phrase it as “insufficient evidence/demonstration” or “unconvincing evidence/demonstration”. :laughing:

You’re getting ahead of yourself. Why discuss the nature of God if God does not exist?
For the atheist, these are just different fictions presented by various storytellers. You want to pick your favorite one? What does that do for you? Entertainment?

Again this deals with the nature of God. Maybe God is completely indifferent. Maybe God died when She birthed the universe. Maybe God made it as clear as is necessary.

Step one is determining if God exists or not. Step two is determining the nature of God.

If the result of step one is that God does not exist, then there is no point to moving to step two.

That’s pure assumption. There is empirical evidence to suggest there’s more to it than that.

The problem with many of Prismatic’s criticisms is that he does not distinguish between the Ground of existence (what many theists call “God” and things that have existence.

As usual, in any reading one has to take the point in its whole context. Note the point you highlighted, Kant included the term “moral.” In the whole context of Kant’s philosophy the only consideration he allowed for ‘God’ is only within the ‘morality’ perspective and only under certain conditions not in general terms. If you research into Kant’s morality, you will be VERY surprised how he related God to humans [in a totally unexpected manner as how theists relate to God].

Based on the many polls, Kant is recognized as one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times. I have high respect for Kant’s philosophy but I do not agree with EVERYTHING he proposed, and for whatever I agree with Kant, I ensured it is justified soundly.

One critical point. On finer consideration, there is a difference between imagination, conception and idealization.
What can be imagined must be empirical possible.
Something that is purely in thoughts only or contradictory like a square-circle is impossible to be imagined.
God is purely a thought and based on pure primal reason without any empirical possibility at all, i.e. impossible.

That is why the consideration of the possibility of whether God exists is moot and a non-starter as far as empirical-rational reality is concern.

The hope of the theists is only in thought and pure primal reason, and as far as thought-only is concern, anything goes.

One critical point, again [I have explained in detail above], my proposals re Buddhist philosophies is NOT for application in our present state, but only when certain conditions are met in the future.

It is not the case of ‘Buddhism “works” for someone.’
What I stated was, the core principles and the more refined levels of practices Buddhism has great potential to contribute to World Peace.
As I had stated, many of the claims are already justified by empirical research by various scientists in tons of research and findings. Example;

Brains of Buddhist monks scanned in meditation study
bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12661646

The Buddhist and the Neuroscientist, What compassion does to the brain
theatlantic.com/health/arch … on/397706/

Note I am only using Buddhism as an example, there are benefits and potentials from other non-theistic Eastern philosophies.

What is needed to be done is for humanity to look into the above potentials in great details and extract whatever for adoption [voluntarily] towards progress in whatever problems [say X*] you raised above.

Frankly I am not clear on what you mean by ‘dasein’ in this case.
*But let say your ‘dasein’ represent whatever potential problem to the individual and mankind, i.e. we label this ‘X’

Note the core principles of Buddhism, i.e. the Four Noble Truths and Noble 8-Fold Paths.

  1. The truth of suffering (dukkha)
  2. The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
  3. The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
  4. The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)

Thus whatever problems you intend your ‘dasein’ to involve, we can label it as ‘X.’
Input ‘X’ into the above 4NT model [see link below] and the problem will be solved subject to the required conditions.

Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

You are lost here.
Isn’t this very obvious.
I have not made an assumption.
It is a fact that the idea of God is based on thoughts.
I have added ‘pure primal reason’ besides merely thoughts alone.
No way, you can disagree on this?

The most credible empirical evidence to prove God exists is for God to appear empirically.
If I say, this such and such apple exists, all I need is to produce the real physical apple for empirical verification. But since [>10,000 years] the idea of God [illusory and psychological] emerged there is no evidence to prove God empirically.

If you want to infer [lower degree of credibility] God exists based on empirical evidence, then God must at least be an empirical possibility. As I had proven, the idea [idealized] of God is not even an empirical possibility at all.

Example, it is observed there are creations within the Universe, I can infer there is a creator [s] but these creators or one creator must be at least empirically possible. I can speculate all things are created by an empirical based human-liked aliens who are 1 million time intelligent than humans from a planet billions of light years away. This is empirically possible because the whole context is within empiricism and rationalism. In this case, the next possible question is who created the creator[s] who created all things in the Universe. This lead to an infinite regression.

The problem is theists are compelled by subliminal psychological compulsion to hastily stop the infinite regression and jumped to the conclusion [based on faith] to insist God is the final cause which is a leap beyond the empirical. Such a God that stopped infinite regression can never be an empirically possible God at all, but is merely based on thoughts and pure primal psychological reasons.

God - More to it?
This is merely speculation and wishful thinking to cover and soothe the psychological angst pulsating from the deep chasms of the psyche.

What I am grounded on is truth, i.e. verifiable truths.
What I have proven is ‘God is an Impossibility’ based on logic, reason and argument.
As such, in terms of truth, it is moot and a non-starter even to raise the question of whether God exists or not as real within an empirical-rational reality.

The ‘idea of God’ emerged into human consciousness merely as a thought to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential angst, i.e. for psychological reasons and never for consideration whether it is real or not.

Theists must be mindful and responsible that when they insist God is ‘real’, they are directly and indirectly contributing to an emergence of an ideology that is a double-edged sword that bring good and terrible evils.
This supposedly real God as claimed also deliver real holy texts [via messenger] that include evil laden elements that compel and inspire evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence upon non-believers.

We dont because there is no reason to but presumably you have some insufficient evidence that would suggest otherwise

I could not care less whether your God actually exists but without justifiable reason I cannot accept that he does
And the demonstration of his existence that would be accepted is the same as for the existence of any thing else

I do like how the goalposts start moving when I point out that first person experience is not actually evidence
I have no problem with anyone believing in God but when they claim evidence I expect them to provide some

My personal favourite is the one claiming the Universe is evidence that God exists
Because he created it but all this is evidence of is a non sequitur and nothing else

In another thread, you (Prism) have defined the “theist’s God” as “the Reality underlying all realities”.

So now that you have conceded to something a lot closer to a true statement, how are you going to prove that a Reality underlying all realities, is impossible?

“My personal favourite is the one claiming the Universe is evidence that God exists
Because he created it but all this is evidence of is a non sequitur and nothing else”

Really? The “non sequitur” needs a Ground; “Prove it” is the non sequitur and “what you mean?” is being a philosophical ignoramus.

Where?
If so, note it is not my claim.
I am stating it is the theist’s claim within their own definition of what is ‘real’, which I do not agree with.

My usual argument is ‘reality’ is relative to a Framework and System which there are many.
As a counter to the above, the theist will claim there is a ‘Reality’ i.e. God that is absolutely real within all other realities conceivable.

Now such a ‘Reality’ aka ‘God’ must be absolutely-absolute or absolutely-perfect, i.e. it is not related/conditioned to those ‘realities’ others can come up with.
Point is when one use the term ‘absolute’ in the sense of absolutely-absolute or absolutely-perfect, it emphasized it is totally unconditional.
Such an unconditional reality can be thought by theists with pure primal reason but it cannot be real within an empirical-rational-reality* to convince every empirical-rational person.

  • As stated above all empirical-rational-realities are conditional.

As I had hypothesized, the reason why theists stretched to jump for a God [illusory] beyond the empirical-rational basis of reality is due to psychological reasons in dealing with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis driven by a ‘zombie parasite’ deep within the human psyche.

Yes. This is probably because of Prismatic’s main problem: logic. Every second sentence coming from him contains a logical fallacy.

The point is that Kant has never said “God is an impossibility” and that you have said that he had said it, thus that you have lied.

Yes, but it is also true that you are using Kant and his philosophy for your pseudo arguments that are based on logical fallacies and have nothing to do with Kant.

Your cynical lie again. The psychological conditions and situations of an atheist are very similar to those of the theists. Stop using your strawman again.

In addition: You do not even know that a belief or a religion, that theology or theism can be very secular too.

What you are stubbornly ignoring is the fact that both atheists and theists have proven you wrong.

That is another, namely the main one of your cynical lies.

You have proven nothing except the fact that you are wrong because of your logical fallacies and many misunderstandings of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Strawman again.

In addition: You are the one who have to give evidence. But you have never done this, because you are not capable of doing it.

Note that we are talking about the question whether God is possible (or perhaps not :stuck_out_tongue: ), look at your title of your thread. Therefore it is not necessary to be a theist or an antitheist or an atheist or whoever - it is sufficient to be a logician, thus somebody who is not very similar to you. Both theists and atheists have proven you wrong. Why? Because they (unlike you) know how to use logic, namely by avoiding logical fallacies, and this has - in the first place - nothing to do with being a theist or an antitheist or an atheist. :sunglasses: