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;
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.
The truth of suffering (dukkha)
The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
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.
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.
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 ), 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.
“Your God”? I didn’t even know that I owned a God.
Accept what ever you want. It’s not specifically about YOU.
That’s a trivial answer that explains nothing.
All observations are “first person experience”, so if that’s not evidence then nothing is.
I will assume that you meant to say something completely different.
Whether something is a non sequitur depends on the phrasing of the statements.
I didn’t use a non seq set of statements when I brought it up. In fact, I skipped most of the argument since I figured that Iambig would understand what I was getting at.
Yes, you string a bunch of words together into an intellectual appliance such that everything is said to be in sync with definitional logic. Ever and always yours.
But unless you are willing and able to intertwine the argument – analysis – into a descriptive account embedded in the actual experiences that you have in interacting with others from day to day, don’t expect us to grasp your conclusions any more, say, substantively?
Again, I am more then willing to join you in allowing others to decide for themselves why you strenuously steer clear of bringing RM/AO and the Real God down to earth.
And how on earth can I possibly “preach” to others when I acknowledge right from the start that my own frame of mind here is just one more existential contraption?
I can’t possibly demonstrate to others why they should think the same. On the contrary, what I am really hoping for is to bump into someone able to convince me to think something else instead.
Trust me: My own frame of mind here and now can’t possibly be grimmer: more forbidding and uninviting.
Here I am entangled in my dilemma, convinced that human interactions unfold in an essentially absurd and meaningless world…only to end at death in oblivion.
I don’t have your Certainty. And I don’t have the comfort and the consolation that anchors you to the Real God.
You know, whatever that actually means. For example, in the course of living your life from day to day.
No, I pointed out that while this may well constitute a demonstration for some, it does not constitute a demonstration for me.
Though, sure, that in itself does not constitute a demonstration that God does not exist.
Come on, everyone draws that line in a different place. If you look around and marvel at all of the extraordinary things embedded in Existence, then, yeah, you [as an individual] might think, “wow, this is all that is necessary for me…it must be God.”
Again: you know me…
I look around me and and I note all of the many conflicts embedded in human interaction that revolve around God and religion. And I connect that dot to my dilemma. And I connect that dot to what I imagine my fate to be on the other side of the grave.
Given that “here and now” I’m inclined toward the No God frame of mind.
But what of those who believe in God? What is it necessary [for them] to believe about Him in order to choose particular sets of behaviors here and now in order to secure what they would like their fate to be there and then?
How does looking around you and marveling at the extraordinary nature of Existence get you any closer to that frame of mind? To that course of action?
I don’t know how to make it any clearer: “I” don’t know if God does not exist. Why? Because [as I point out time and again to Prismatic] there’s that criticial gap between what I think I know about Him here and now and all that I would need to know [ontologically/teleologically] about Existence itself in order to be certain.
Just like you.
Now, back to the bottom line:
Yeah, maybe, maybe, maybe.
But that doesn’t make my points go away. Here you are living your life from day to day. Bumping into others who may or may not see things your way. But, when they don’t, “rules of behavior” must be established. So, how is that connected to God? And how is what you do choose to do here and now connected to God on the other side of the grave?
Isn’t this always the bottom line for the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks? The “nature” of God may be construed in any number of ways. But the role that God plays “for all practical purposes” in their actual lives towers over all of that.
No getting around the abyss – the Grim Reaper – is there?
One would think that a person who constantly writes about the importance of demonstrations has thought about it extensively and has some insights to share.
One would be wrong.
The rest of your post is about God. I’m not going to respond because I don’t care about that. I only responded to you in order to discuss “demonstrations” - what’s valid/invalid, convincing/unconvincing, sufficient/insufficient.
This time, I’ll be the “lackey”.
Arminius is exactly right.
That’s where. So, back to the issue - to the theist, “God is Reality itself”. And who have you been trying to argue with, but the theists.
So what you have to prove and demonstrate is that there is no Reality, no “uni-verse”.
Well, poorly stated, but not entirely dumb. The problem is that you said that “The Reality” (let’s call it) is “unrelated” to your multiple realities. Who ever said they have to be unrelated to The Reality?
“Perfect” doesn’t really have anything to do with “unconditional” unless the conditions are flaws.
That depicts your silliness. You create this phrase, “empirical-rational-realities”. I suspect that you are not aware that a common symptom of schizoid personality is to invent such phrases and words as justifications within explanations expecting them to be taken seriously without definition.
Define your term, “empirical-rational-realities”.
The larger problem that you are going to have with such a definitoin is with the word “realities”.
You are going to have to prove or demonstrate that there are multiples realities.
Therefore ‘Reality’ [theists’] is an impossibility.
The theists ‘Reality’ as I have show above is impossible.
There such a Reality cannot be related to the empirical possible multiple realities.
English is not my first language but I am not stupid.
Normally when one need to emphasize certainty and strictness, they will answer ‘absolutely’ which generally meant there is ‘no doubt about it from that person’s understanding’.
Such ‘absolutely’ is used with reference to fallible humans, but God is infallible, thus to emphasize, it is proper to state ‘absolutely-absolute’ so that no possible flaws are attributable to an infallible God.
It is the same with ‘perfect’ which is used commonly in reference to humans and non-theistic things. Thus to give exclusiveness and without exception to God we use the term ‘absolutely perfect’ to differentiate its used from the secular environment.
free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:
unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic:
viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic:
positive; certain:
I have pointed out many times in your very narrow ‘tunnel’ thinking on such matters.
How can your views on vocabulary be so stupid. Words are invented all the time.
“empirical-rational-realities”
I adapted this from Kant who was caught in the very famous disputes of the Empiricism versus Rationalism polemic battles during his time.
Note Hume’s ‘is-ought’ dilemma.
Kant resolved the above dilemma with an empirical-rational approach on a complementarity basis to knowledge and reality.
Thus Kant’s famous,
Thoughts without content are empty, Intuitions without Concepts are blind.
A51 B75
Science is significantly empirical but has its weakness [Hume Problem of Induction]. Scientist at times do not agree among themselves in those marginal contentious issues and they have been changing their minds on their own accepted theories since Science emerged.
Thus from a philosophical POV, for such empirical knowledge, as Kant proposed must be reinforced with the highest possible rational arguments.
As I had stated, there is a qualified Scientific reality that is conditioned to the Scientific Framework and System. No scientific theory can stand on its own without reference to the Scientific Method and its processes.
There is the common sense reality where ordinary people cannot differentiate from what is really real and illusions but merely accept for whatever is experienced and thought.
Then we have the various hierarchy of philosophical realities based on the various philosophical ideologies, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, Empiricism versus Rationalism, etc.
But the most credible cognition of reality is the empirical-rational reality. In this case whatever knowledge is cognized it must be qualified to an empirical basis and reinforced with the greatest philosophical rational arguments [not based on the primal reason of the theists].
The empirical-rational basis of reality need to be as multi-disciplinary [from as many fields of knowledge] as possible and gelled by philosophy-proper.
As I had implied, you are like a puffer fish which merely puff itself with air to look big, i.e. to show you are a philosophical biggy but you are really empty inside. This is why I insist your philosophical views are very narrow and shallow.
Say what you like of my philosophical views. My views may be appear to be from me, but I ensures they are always traceable to foundations from some philosophical greats.
Your #2 is not accepted (by anyone), thus cannot be a premise. A proof has to be a proof in someone’s eyes (besides your own unless you are claiming to be a holy prophet).
The reason #2 cannot be accepted by anyone is that your supposed definition for God in the OP is ridiculous for all of the reasons that people have been telling you.
And you cannot say that…
the definition of G is X and also
the definition of G is Y and
since X is false, then Y is false.
therefore G is false
…unless X and Y are identically the same. And in your case, they are not. You cannot have two different definitions of the same item. The definition that you provided in the OP is not a definition (whether any theist has ever claimed it of God or not).
Eventually you came up with an acceptable definition for “God” and one with which theists actually agree. So you have to start from there. Your prior attempts failed miserably. You have been told why by many people.
To make any headway, you now have to prove that The Reality, above all “realities” (whatever that means) is impossible. And you cannot use prior failed arguments for evidence.
And you still have to define that little twisted term.
Well, the jury is out on that one. We can’t decide between delusional, stupid, ignorant, or some combination. Although we do have “arrogant” nailed down.
Again, it’s insufficient (if not “stupid” or “delusional”) to reference your own mistakes as evidence of success and truth. And you thinking that they are not mistakes is irrelevant and evidence toward that “delusional” pronouncement. A proof is only a proof to the person who accepts your reasoning.
And so far, that has been no one (whether you think them “rational” or not).
It might be critical in a lot of ways, but it is not a definition of God. The Reality can be said to be “absolute”, but as a definition, it would have to read, “absolute … something”. “Absolute” is an adjective, not a noun, but “God” is a noun.
Now, look at his typical, his stubbornly ignorant, his stupid reaction again:
This is again one of your stupid answers, and they also show clearly that I am right and that you have no argument. You have merely pseudo arguments, coward accusations, ad hominems, absolutely insubstantial phrases …
), look at 