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.
Thanks for helping clarify.
I have thought a great deal about the relationship between God and science, and particularly about what, if anything, science can tell us about the existence of God…
Long story short, science can’t tell us anything about Gods existence.
Prismatic’s opening post and almost all his/her other posts are full of logical fallacies and hollow phrases (there is nothing behind it). He/she does not define “God”, “absolute perfection”, “absolutely perfect”. Apart from this, he/she tries to magically “convince” every other stupid guy who reads his/her schizoid and delusionial “realities” (note, just for example, his/her schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”). A schizoid personality wants multiple realities, okay, but he/she is not able to prove or demonstrate his “multiple realities”.
And why is he/she so hostile just to theists? Why is he/she not capable of understanding that one does not have to be a theist in order to know what a logical fallacy is.
Or is he/she neither he nor she, but it? If so, then it must be a pretty false computer program. I guess, it is more a they, but at least a multiple personality with multiple ILP accounts.
Dumb … logic? What is wrong with my syllogism structure?
If you don’t agree with my premises, that is a common thing.
The premises in my arguments are not definitions they are soundly justified premises.
So far you have not been able to convince me my premises are baseless.
What you have argued, re ‘absolute,’ perfection, and the likes are very childish and philosophical immature. Note my point re the finer meaning of ‘absolute’ in relation to ‘God’ below.
Note ‘The Reality’ is another deceptive label for ‘God.’
Show me how your ‘The Reality’ is even possible within an empirical-rational reality.
I suppose you never read my posts carefully but countered blindly - confirmation bias.
Note I wrote this above;
Philosophical Realists like you claim reality as follows;
Philosophical Anti-Realists do not agree with the untenable Philosophical Realism and claim various anti-realist views.
Philosophical Realists [like you] claim there is only ONE Reality out there which humans attempt to correspond with evidences, concepts, principles, laws, etc.
You have no grounds to claim there is only ONE Reality, i.e. The Reality.
Otherwise show me your proofs?
Nb: I used ‘wiki’ as a convenience not as something carved in stone tablet. If you are doubtful, counter check with SEP, IEP and some other more credible philosophical sources.
Justifying my arguments strongly and stating fact is not “arrogant.”
The fact is your philosophical bases are too narrow and shallow. Otherwise prove it by bringing more groundings to your philosophical views.
That is only your bias opinion.
Yes, “absolute … something.”
But the claim with God is everything that is attributed to God is ‘absolute’.
This is why many theists label God as The Absolute [with Capital A].
I suggest you read the above carefully and let the point sink in.
Note this point;
“If the term absolute is understood in the strict sense, it rejects the relativity which is inherent to the mechanism of human cognition, understanding, and language.”
I have argued why ‘absolute’ and ‘perfection’ MUST [imperative] be taken in the strictest sense.
As such God as an absolutely perfect being is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
I believe when I state “empirical-rational reality” you jump to the common understanding ‘reality’ is something as an object out there.
NO! the concept of “reality” in this case is not a pre-existing thing out there, it is an “emergence” that is independent with the self. In this sense, humans are the co-creator of that “reality” which they are a part of. Note this is not my personal opinion, I stand on ‘shoulders of philosopher-giants’ to ground my point.
I anticipate you will condemn blah -blah -blah as usual with your confirmation bias and that is because you lack the depths and widths of necessary philosophical knowledge to understand [not necessary agree with] deal with those refined issues.
I had claimed the basis for the idea of God is necessary to soothe the terrible psychological angst within.
For me, due to the real evidence of the potential of critical threats from the ideologies of theism, I [as a citizen of humanity] have a responsibility to critique theism.
I understand my very strong and soundly justified criticisms will trigger & threaten the psychological security of some theists but this is a necessary compromised and sacrifice for humanity sake.
I apologize if this is the case with you but I have to continue with my criticisms.
Note God as an Absolute-Perfect-Being is not my definition nor invention from the air.
I abstracted this from a ‘literature review’ of what most theists believe their God is.
I also argued why the ultimate God MUST be an ontological God.
Note my explanations [variously] re why ‘absolute’ and The Absolute is related to God. e.g. viewtopic.php?p=2688036#p2688036
Note Kant [Philosophical anti-realist] argued there is no such thing as thing-in-itself, i.e. in this case no reality-in-itself. Thus reality is reality-*with-myself or reality-with-ourselves.
*interdependent.
Buddhism-proper makes the same claim.
What exactly is “empirical-rational reality”?
First, wherever I mentioned the word ‘reality’ take note, it is not something out there to be corresponded with but rather in the sense of an ‘emergence’.
Scientific reality is based on purely the empirical, but it has its weaknesses.
Empirical-rational reality is merely empirical based plus critical philosophical judgement as a co-creator of what-is in which the self is a part of.
Thus my empirical-rational reality as emerges do not include a God existing as a white man with a beard in the sky above [empirically very unlikely] nor as an absolutely perfect being [empirically impossible].
In science if a hypothesis cannot be subject to potential falsification then it is deemed to be invalid
And this would be the case where the hypothesis in question was to determine the existence of God
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective means by which this can be falsified or verified
As an atheist I dont think God exists because of lack of evidence but I cannot be absolutely certain of this
So any one claiming certainty either way is just expressing a subjective opinion masquerading as objective truth
Objective truth pertaining to physical reality has to be capable of verification else it is no more than an assertion
Of course it could still be true but without such verification it would be rather presumptuous to assume that it was
As a theist, I agree that “God” cannot be proved via reason or empirical evidence, but “lack of evidence” is not a valid reason to disbelieve. Evidence requires boundaries and boundaries indicate limitation. How many theists will agree that God is so bounded? Asking for evidence is like asking if God can make a rock too heavy to lift: it’s not a paradox, it’s nonsensical.
Lack of evidence is a valid reason to disbelieve if evidence is the actual criteria for belief. But then it would no longer be belief as
it would have an empirical basis to it. God by definition has to be bounded since logic demands it. Now some try to get around this
by claiming God transcends logic but only because it conveniently avoids disproving his possible existence by logical argumentation
It seems that you are not capable of reading either.
I have been saying for a very long time and over and over again that your statements have nothing to do with theism in the first place. You are wrong because of your logical fallacies - based on your false definitions, your false premises and thus your false conclusions.
You are not capable of understanding this, because your main problem is a logical one (thus also a psychological one).
To you, your delusion and your angst are more important than any kind of logic. Psychologically said, you are full of anxiety or angst: you even horribly fear God and theists. Your opening post and all your other posts show clearly that theists, antitheists or atheists are not needed in order to see that you are wrong, that your problem has nothing to do with theism, antitheism and atheism in the first place, because your problem is primarily and mainly a logical and thus also a psychological problem.
What I have been saying here in your thread and in all your other threads is based on logic. Your problem is logic (psychologic problems included of course).
Note:
You say or at least suggest that you are against monotheists in particular.
The typical monotheisms (more accurately called “henotheisms”) are Judaism and Islam. No other religion is monotheistic (more accurately called “henotheistic”).
Christianity is no purely monotheistic religion, because the Christian God can be (1) God Father, (2) God Son, (3) God Holy Ghost, and he has a (4) mother too, the so-called “Mother of God”. (4 does not equal 1.) If a god has a mother, then this has nothing to do with monotheism; if a god can be three different gods, then this has nothing to do with monotheism. (3 does not equal 1.) So Christianity is more polytheism than a monotheism.
Polytheistic gods do not have to be and are not perfect or, as you say, “absolutely perfect”. A god does not have to be such a god - all polytheistic religions and also all (namely: two [see above]) monotheistic religions show this clearly. The god of the Jews and the Muslims is not absolutely good, but more evil than good. And polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: “monotheism”). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are “undying humans”, so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said “undying humans” as the said “projections of the humans”. So, their gods were not “absolutely perfect” - their gods were much more unperfect than perfect.
So your claim that a god must be “absolutely perfect” is nonsense, based on your delusions and angst. God can be a principle, God can be the first mover, God can be the first cause … etc., but God does not have to be “absolutely perfect”. An “absolutely perfect” God is your wishful thinking, based on your delusions and angst; if this were not so, then you would not do what you want to do because of your delusions and angst: attack him and the theists in order to get rid of your delusions and angst. So, all your statements that are based on logical fallacies have primarily and mainly to do with your delusions and your angst.
Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it has only one God. God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations
of the same God. They are three in one not three separate from each other. Furthermore the First Commandment clearly states there is only one God
I know very well what you mean, and according to many but not all Christians you are right; but people of the Jewish and the Islamic religion do not agree on the statement that the trinity you are speaking of is a “manifestation” of one god and thus of monotheism. In addition, they do not agree on the statement that a god has or should have a mother, because this would mean more than one god, at least two gods. If you visit certain countries of Europe, you will see that their Christian cult has more to do with the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God than with God himself or his son Jesus (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries) or his Holy Ghost (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries). Christianity is not only characterized by division of powers (see: the Christians’ trinity and Mother of God), but also by the separation of its Church and the state (laicism) as well as by peacefulness and humanity.
The First Commandment clearly belongs to the Jewish religion - regardless whether it is also accepted by Christians or not.
But this is more a subject of another thread, for example the following one: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187389.
Your views above are too shallow and narrow. I agree there are various forms of monotheism, but what is critical here is the substance or essence. Note ‘monotheism’
In essence, Monotheism is the believe in ONE God that stand by itself [Islam] or overrides whatever sub-gods or forms of God that are believed, e.g. Christianity, Hindu Brahman.
I have already explained why the idea of God as believed and psychologically intended will and must ultimately gravitate and be reduced to an absolutely perfect God.
It has to be because no rational [basic] will accept their God to be inferior to another, i.e. having their god having to kiss the ass of another more inferior God.
The most rational of men, the ancient Greeks, were ok with inferior gods who held traits of jealousy, anger, violence, immortality, and the like.
They were more human, oh so human, the highest god was the cause of their fall. Does this imply an anthropomorphic schizophrenia between Philosophers and the gods of the common man?
