God is an Impossibility

surreptitious75 · December 18, 2017, 4:15am

Inter subjectivity is fundamental to science because single first person perspectives can not be accepted
as valid. As there is no means by which they can be tested for bias. It does not equate to objective truth
however. But it does reduce as much as possible any subjective interpretations of observable phenomena

Arminius · December 18, 2017, 12:34pm

Prismatic567:

Arminius:

Prismatic567:

What wrong with ‘subjectivism’ [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: “John sees Mary”. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: “Mary sees John” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary” (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: “John sees Mary, and Mary sees John” (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or “John and Mary see each other” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John” (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or “John and Mary are seen by each other” (O-P-S) … or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not “in fashion”, then this does not mean that they have vanished.

Note …

Note …

Note …

Note …

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

And my example “John sees Mary” includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged “critique” does not change anything. Furthermore, your “critique” is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a “social” situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become “designed” (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

You are missing the point again, and your alleged “critique” is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”.

There is only one reality.

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 5:40am

It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

But philosophically one need to understand the limitations of language. You don’t seem to get this point. I suggest you brush up on the Philosophy of Linguistic [as wide as possible] and note Wittgenstein’s Language Games. Note Chomsky versus others.

And my example “John sees Mary” includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged “critique” does not change anything. Furthermore, your “critique” is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

My point is,
your “It is an objective fact that there are subjects” is based on intersubjectivity.

So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a “social” situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become “designed” (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

There is only one reality.

I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me ‘what is the really real apple on the table’?

Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.

And note Russell’s point;

There is no real objective table but rather an intersubjective one depending on the Framework and System [Leibniz, Berkeley, Science, etc.] relied upon.

Subconsciously your know you cannot defend your position, that is why you are resorting to derogatory remarks rather than presenting credible arguments. I expect James and yourself will continue to condemn me ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments. I suggest you read and reflect wider and deeper on the whole range of philosophy [relevant to this forum].

James_S_Saint · December 19, 2017, 6:34am

Then you should understand why talking to you is pointless.
You invent your own language to suit to your sermons (not to mention ignoring any and all contradiction).

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 6:44am

I don’t give a damn on the above.
If there is any credible counter argument [from anyone] against the OP, I will welcome and respond.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.

So far you have countered with the following;

No such thing as absolute perfection - I have trashed it.
God is never assigned ‘perfection’ - I have trashed it

James_S_Saint · December 19, 2017, 6:48am

As i have said, you invent and you lie.

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 7:09am

The above one-liner is evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity and capacity re this point. Check with ‘Snark’ who is also very good with such ‘tantrums.’

James_S_Saint · December 19, 2017, 7:19am

You might want to note, even count, how many disagree with you and eventually see no point in trying to reason with you. They have all explained precisely why. You ignore and then lie about how you defeated them. Arrested Adolescence…

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 7:49am

As I had stated I don’t give a damn with your above opinions.

If any, fine, but my main purpose is I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is a discussion forum, those who agree [if any] are not likely to be involved in a serious discussion on this issue.

What is important to me is for someone to raise credible counters against my arguments. I appreciate you and others have raised objections, but they are not strong ones.

Mr_J · December 20, 2017, 3:28pm

While me and Prismatic don’t agree on much as an atheist I also believe that existence of God is impossible in terms of physical evidence existing separate from mind where faith or belief is not grounds of evidence at all.

Snark · December 20, 2017, 4:57pm

As a theist, I agree.

Mr_J · December 20, 2017, 5:08pm

Well if that is so, how do you trust and rely on faith alone? That would be my next question.

The_Eternal_Warrior · December 20, 2017, 6:24pm

You don’t. Loyal to a fault; if you never doubt your faith, it’s not faith and then it becomes faith in your own self, which is just as unreliable, and trust? Some times the only reason we trust is because we have no choice.

It’s like relying on just one sense, take eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin; let’s talk about trusting your heart, or your wits, your gut or having a spine; having a pair. Rely on just one alone? What do you rely on when all are knocked out, what then but an invisible hand and what if that doesn’t even cover at some times? What is it are you looking for?

Mr_J · December 20, 2017, 6:30pm

Sounds like blind faith to me, if I am going to believe in anything I need something a bit more to reinforce my belief or commitment.

The_Eternal_Warrior · December 20, 2017, 7:15pm

Honestly, you might be stuck thinking in base terms of a removal of all of these things, which is on the rare occasion and isn’t ‘blind’. At the point, it’s being caught up in the motion of life and living and having it harder to explain how these components come into play during our lives and how we just keep going through whatever gets in our way whether we still feel like victim or survivor, etcetera, many different perceptions and many variations of situations. What I’m explaining is more like relying on all the senses and even the ones you can’t and it becomes so much not being able to trust any single one of them or all of them or even any ‘new’ ones that might come up and having to, anyway.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lIimQcOJQI[/youtube]

James_S_Saint · December 20, 2017, 7:19pm

There is no living creature void of faith … in something.

Arminius · December 21, 2017, 12:30am

It is not necessary to be an atheists or an antitheists or a theists in order to know that Prismatic is wrong.

Snark · December 21, 2017, 2:23am

This is true: physical evidence is impossible due to the very nature of evidence. Faith or belief is not evidence, either, but I don’t need evidence to conclude my toe hurts when it hurts.

Prismatic567 · December 21, 2017, 2:58am

Nah, all non-human living things rely on instincts.

Yes, ALL human beings rely on faith [varying degrees], here is Aristotle’s ‘anger’ applied to ‘faith’,

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
[list]with the right person and
to the right degree and
at the right time and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way -
that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy. -Aristotle[/list:u]

In the above replace ‘angry’ with ‘faith’.
What is critical is ‘degree.’

Even with Science which has the highest degree of objectivity and credibility, there is still an element of faith but in very low degrees, say 1-2%. The laymen [who did not participate in the proving] who trust the Scientists’ theory use a higher degree of faith [say 20%] that Scientific theories are true.

OTOH, with theists [in psychological desperation] it is 99.9999% faith in their belief in a God-as-real when in fact God is an impossibility and there no need even to initiate any hypothesis to prove it.

Prismatic567 · December 21, 2017, 3:18am

How do you know your pain is not imaginary?

Faith and beliefs [unjustified] are never credible and reliable.
Would you accept if a prosecutor [in a court] has faith and believed you are a murderer, rapists, and the likes?

I understand theism is a critical necessity for the majority at present [not future] and there are no easy alternatives at the present to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Theism is not a significant issues if theists keep their faith and beliefs private and personal.

But theism and theists as a whole has the potential and had already committed the most abominable evils. This is because of certain [real to theists] God[s] deliver commands in holy books via messengers that contain evil laden elements [per evidences] that inspire SOME natural evil prone theists to commit terrible evils and violence on non-believers [glaring evidence].

These real terrible evils committed on non-believers and others and the potential of theism [re Islam] to exterminate the human species is grounded on what? - answer: a made-belief illusory God that is an impossibility.

The above are the reasons why humanity must critique and question theism.