God is an Impossibility

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.

Tell us, James.

First person experience only is not evidence since it cannot be independently verified

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. :sunglasses:

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.

I noted the above.
I will not bother to response unless there is something of substance. There is none in the above.

My point;

  1. To the theist, “God is Reality itself
  2. God is an Impossibility - argument re OP
  3. 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.

Note my presentation there where ‘perfect’ is reconciled to ‘unconditional’.
viewtopic.php?p=2687884#p2687884

Note here ‘perfect’ is synonymous with ‘unconditional’ - free from limitations.

Another most critical quality attributed to God is ‘Absolute’;
dictionary.com/browse/absolute?s=t

  1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect:

  2. not mixed or adulterated; pure:

  3. complete; outright:

  4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:

  5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic:

  6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic:

  7. 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.

Geeezzz … back to dumb arguments posing as logic.

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 …

This ‘proof’ relies entirely upon how you (arbitrarily) define the word “God”, much like Anselms ontological ‘proof’.
However we define words it makes no difference whatsoever to what actually does or doesn’t exist in reality.
You haven’t really proved anything about God (maybe something about your own psychology, reasoning skills, etc.).

I agree that “perfection” is an ideal, something that exists only in the mind ( i.e. has no physical (empirical) existence), but many theists would NOT define the word “God” in precisely the same way as you have defined it.
Premiss two is false…
Your whole argument is a “non starter”.

What exactly is “empirical-rational reality”?
Does it differ from actual reality, if so how?

I suspect what he means is, “whatever scientists (or rather their media outlet) tell us to believe”, but he didn’t want to say or admit to that. His religion Secularism (which abhors and denies the fact that it is a religion), so he divides thought into “our righteous rational elite thoughts” and “your superstitious irrational foolish thoughts”. And if you don’t agree with him then you obviously belong in the second group (along with the rest of the world).

What is “purely in thought” supposed to mean? Is conceptualization empirically possible or “purely in thought”? Please define the term.

You have the square-circle idea right. The mind comprehends “square” and “circle” because both offer information to perception, but the mind slams shut when the two are put together. You need to define “purely in thoughts” such that it can be proven to belong in the same category as impossible things.

Conceptualization or concept passes the first step for possessing existence of some sort; it imparts information/meaning to minds. We can easily prove that you’re correct that impossibilities can’t be imagined by the glaring fact that impossibilities have no possibility of being discussed objectively. A square circle imparts no information or meaning. God on the other hand–like conceptualization or justice–though they’re abstractions, quite obviously all do impart information to minds. From an informational standpoint all three offer this common evidence of their existence. All three can be discussed objectively because they have informational structure. It appears you’ve exerted considerable effort just in this thread (and how many others?) discussing the very thing you lump into the category of impossibilities, blatantly contradicting and disproving your own words.

To me, this is yet another intellectual contraption. What on earth does it mean pertaining to an actual context in which moral values come into conflict.

Even relating to extreme behaviors like rape or murder or genocide, something is said to be evil from a particular point of view. Yet there are those able to rationalize them. Not only that but there are those who will insist that, say, aborting unborn babies is extremely evil. On the contrary say others what is extremely evil is forcing women to give birth.

Now, with God such behaviors are deemed to be or not to be sins. But what of a Godless world? How is evil encompassed then? In a world of conflicting goods?

This is where we just go around and around in circles.

“In your head” you have proven that God is an impossibilty. How? By insisting that the meaning that you give to the words used in your arguments/analyses/concepts are necessarily true. But you have absolutely no capacity to scour the entire universe in order to confirm that there is in fact No God. And you are still burdened with the gap that exist between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that would need to be known by any mere mortal to know for sure.

Or, rather, as with folks like James Saint, you have not demonstrated to me that you have closed this gap.

You point out:

You need to take this up with others. My aim here is to consider the “concept” of God that others have concocted “in their head”; and then explore the extent to which this “world of words” can be intertwined into the world we live in when men and women come into conflict over value judgments. Either in a world with or without God.

Again, I have absolutely no idea what this conveys to us about conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments in a No God world.

Note an example from your own life of late — an experience in which you can “flesh out” these points for us.

What Kant’s philosophy entriely avoids in my view is the manner in which I construe the meaning of conflicting goods. Encompassed here by William Barrett:

For the choice in…human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

Note where he focuses the beam that is human psychology. On the need to embody certainty in one or another rendition of objectivism.

Sure, one can speak of “evil” as though it can be calculated objectively. But, from my frame of mind, I wonder: how is this actually done sans God?

Sure, down the road [maybe hundreds of years from now] there will be a “universal standard” whereby each and every pregnant woman can be told by that era’s rendition of the philosopher-kings whether this particular abortion or that particular abortion is either “good” or “evil”.

As for how difficult this might be, why don’t you start us off by proposing such standards for an issue like abortion.

On the other hand, from my point of view, you will either take your “intellectual contraptions” above to the grave [and many, many have] or you will come to grasp just how immense that gap must be between what you think you know about God here and now and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to know this.

The irony [from my point of view] is the extent to which you fail to recognize just how much your own frame of mind here is actually in sync with the religionists as a psychological contraption.

In other words, it’s that you know more so than what you know.

Well, sans the part about immortality, salvation and divine justice.

Sort of like Plato imagining the ideal Republic. That is, conceptually, in a world of words.

This part I get.

As long as it all pertains to “general descriptions” of human interaction.

Just out of curiosity how do you imagine Buddhists confronting the arguments of those who advance the frame of mind that revolves around political economy.

This:

Political economy is the study of production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth.

In other words, do you imagine that they imagine themselves succeeding where the No God socialists and communists failed?

How in particular do Buddhists imagine “social justice” as this pertains to, among other things, “the market economy”, “democracy and the rule of law”, “controlling the means of production”?

How would Buddhists reconfigure the global economy? How would they confront the “show me the money!” moral nihilists who currently own and operate it?

Perhaps that’s because I have given considerable thought to the gap that clearly does exist between what I think about the existence of God here and now and all that I would need to know about Existence itself in order to be certain that I can demonstrate it to others.

As I point out over and over again, in that respect we are all in the same teeny, tiny boat: unimaginably infinitesimal specks afloat on the staggeringly vast expanse that is Reality itself.

I am just among the very few who actually do take at least some time to think about it “philosophically”. You know, instead of merely wallowing in pop culture and mass consumption; or in embracing one or another comforting and consoling shortcut that I call objectivism.

Or in simply struggling to subsist from day to day.

Note to others:

What the hell does that mean?!!! :wink:

Well, you made me laugh. :laughing:

It is truly sad when I am able to reduce you down to this sort of “retort”.

Note to others:

It is, isn’t it? :wink:

Take it as a compliment.

And be grateful. [-o<