And as I told you, everyone one of those defining clauses are meant to agree. They are not different uses for the same word, merely varied ways of explaining it. You attempt to leave out the two that clarify the issue because they prove you wrong.
You do realize that all you are saying is that the real god (if He/She/It exists) doesn’t have this particular characteristic of absolute perfection which you and some theists insist that He must have.
IOW, you not disproving the existence of God, you’re disproving the existence of an absolutely perfect God. (and “absolutely perfect” is your own definition of perfection)
You have not shown that at all. Although it may well be true.
Which two?
Btw, where do you get the idea all the meanings listed in a dictionary for one word must all agree?
Note:
dictionary.com/browse/gay; homosexuality, joyful
dictionary.com/browse/general; common, a rank in military, etc.
I agree with your points above.
My argument is very specific to only an absolutely perfect God.
I stated God-proper regardless must ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.
Thus if you claim a God that is not absolutely perfect God and has empirical elements, then my argument will not apply.
When you impute empirical elements [not absolutely absolute elements] into a God, then such a God is empirically possible.
But an empirical God by definition will be an inferior God to a God that is absolutely perfect. If you accept your God is an inferior God, that is your prerogative but such an empirical God will be subjected to the command of the superior God to kiss its arse.
For example you can believe in an anthropological [empirical] God like 'the gigantic bearded man in the sky, I will agree such an empirical based god is possible. Note below.
But the point is, rationally, the possibility of such a God existing is 0.00…1 probable.
However the final test is, since it is empirical based, then bring the evidence [exactly as describe] for empirical testing and verification.
Theists can describe their God with whatever empirical qualities which not an impossibility, but the final test is bring the evidence to justify the empirical existence of God.
Besides the empirical God faced the question of ‘Who created that God’ and thus ending with an infinite regression which only reason can resolve.
Either way, it is checkmate situation for the theists’ claim God exists.
As I has claimed, the only possible reason for how the idea of God arise in the consciousness of humans is due to psychological impulses driven by an existential crisis. You may have missed the explanations and evidences I provided to support this point.
See: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697
I have given links in other posts, e.g. this amongt others
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg[/youtube]
I am repeating myself, but, a lesser but kind god is preferable compared to a cruel god that was more strong and intelligent than the first.
I’m most familiar with Jehovah’s Witness conception of might makes right.
Because he created you, he owns you, and you are a slave that must obey or die.
The reference is to greatest and an omni-good God which will do no wrong.
Again, note some specific examples. You thought one thing and then others come along able to persuade you to think something else instead.
Note particular instances of this: [b]Not the details so much as the ideas themselves — important ideas that were reconfigured.[/b]
As, for example, folks [and new experiences] came along reconfiguring my Christianity into Marxism into Leninism into Trotskyism into Democratic Socialism into Social Democracy into existentialism into nihilism.
Though [of course] once you acknowledge it, you are acknowledging in turn that it may well happen again. That there are other ideas you have here and now just waiting for someone to come along and reconfigure.
But let’s be clear…
Are you in fact acknowledging that RM/AO is not the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp human interactions out in a particular world?
That new experiences and new relationships and new sources of knowledge/information etc., may well come along in your life and change it?
Which is basically my own frame of mind here.
Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?
Is there even a small possiblity that RM/AO is just one more run of the mill psychological contraption that allows you to subsume “I” in but one more run of the mill rendition of Certainty.
Certainty on this side of the grave intertwined somehow in your head with the Real God on the other side of it.
But this is still basically just an intellectual contraption. How is it actually relevant to the many, many moral and political conflicts that are engaged right here at ILP? Between, among others, the conservatives and the liberals.
How, for example, would you connect the dots between RM/AO and the policies of Donald Trump?
Are you ever really willing to bring the “definitional logic” embedded in these epistemological contraptions out into the world of our day to day interactions?
[b]Note to others:
Sure, maybe he has done so. I don’t read all of his posts. Note particular examples that he has conveyed regarding RM/AO’s pertinence to the is/ought world.[/b]
Sure, given the sheer complexity of human psychology in a world bursting at the seams with all those equally complex interactions between genes and memes, it’s certainly possible that you have come closer to encompassing me than I have to encompassing you.
We can only allow others here to make up their own minds about that.
And, indeed, on this side of the grave, I am [here and now] still hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. And far, far, far removed from the comfort and the consolation that comes with Certainty. And, yes, it can be rather frightening when you have “succeeded” in thinking yourself into believing that we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for all of eternity in the obliteration of “I”.
You got me there. That is what I have managed to think myself into believing is probably true regarding the “human condiditon”.
But I still speculate in turn that what “frightens” objectivists of your ilk is that before you manage to drag me up out of the hole that I have dug myself into, I will somehow manage to drag you down into it with me.
Still, that doesn’t make either one of our own contraptions here any less problematic. At least not until someone is able to actually demonstrate conclusively that what they think Reality is, is in fact what Reality is.
In other words, not just in their heads.
So what if there is a gap?
You go out and learn about the world and you try to reduce the gap.
But it never goes away. Then you die.
So what?
Why did you ignore the ones that I gave?
That’s why I “verify” until there is nothing left to question or change.
The fundamentals of RM/AO are immutable, but extended unproven theories can be modified, corrected, or just abandoned. For example (and don’t ignore it this time) we were talking about the cause of red-shift. I proposed the theoretical possibility of a fading away of the blue from the light by a particular mechanism. Phyllo suggest a different possible mechanism. When I heard his theory, it was clear to me that his theory was more probable than mine, although the theories were not exclusive, so both would have influence. So after that, I kept watching for any details concerning the issue and eventually just accepted the much higher probability that phyllo’s theory was the most significant and right.
But you should realize that in RM/AO there are thoughts that absolutely must be true and others that are mere extended personal theory. That is something that you don’t seem to get. You appear to say “well if anything was wrong, everything might be wrong”. That is false reasoning. There are different kinds of thoughts, some of which can never be wrong.
What is “optimal” is contingent upon the circumstances. And there are many “rational” ways to explain the same reality. RM/AO is merely one ontology that, unlike public physics theories, is “complete”.
I don’t know what you mean by “about the existence of Existence”, but any “gaps” concerning RM/AO and fundamental existence are relatively insignificant. RM/AO answers many questions that public physics currently cannot answer without disagreeing with anything they have observed. RM/AO is a completion of Science, not a substitute.
Any actual thinking is, to you, an “intellectual contraption”. So who cares.
I have done that many times. Such things are not your concern. Your priority is casting doubt and insecurity, so stick with it.
That seems to be your comfort zone, so you are certainly not interested in leaving it behind.
Not a chance.
“Demonstrate conclusively” is in the eyes of the beholder and guess what. You have demonstrated that you have no interest at all in getting out of your own dasien “contraption”.
All thoughts are “just in your head”.
I am all for Gap Management, i.e. between what is planned/intended and what is actually achieved, and to reduce the gap. This is critical for life as when one failed to plan, one had already planned to fail.
But as I had highlighted to iambiguous in the Dassein thread, his idea of
“all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself” in order make that gap go away …
is an impossibility. So his proposition is not tenable.
For example with Science, we start from knowledge of the scientifically known and extrapolate from the known to the possible-to-be-known.
The “ALL” that iambiguous set up is an impossibility to be achieved or known.
This “ALL” is the same with the idea of God which is an impossibility.
The only exception for the requirement of ‘ALL’ is within the absolute morals of Philosophical of Morality.
In other cases, it would be more effective in life to adopt the Principles of Continuous Improvement from the current state -in baby steps or quantum leaps - toward possible goals [not impossible ones as iambiguous is expecting].
In general, when one set impossible goals and expect to achieve it or even near it, one is merely bringing sufferings to oneself.
From my point of view though, the critical point revolves around distinguishing between perfection we can point to empirically in the world around us, and perfection that is sheer speculation regarding an entity that one merely has faith in the existence of.
Or defines into existence. Or infers into existence by way of an intellectual contraption.
Then it’s back to this:
Yes, and this is applicable to each and everyone of us, each and every time we speculate about these things. The limitations of philosophy [and even of science so far] seems of paramount importance here.
There’s human knowledge able to be verified; and then there’s conjecture. Conjecture embedded in the unknown unknowns.
Okay, but this doesn’t make the gap go away. There either is or there is not an “ultimate limit” of knowledge. And that either is or is not within reach of the human species here on earth.
How is it not reasonable then to set up the problem in this manner?
On the other hand, in my view, there are any number of objectivists who “solve” the problem by concocting one or another “world of words”; one or another set of intellectual assumptions. Here what is said to be true basically revolves around the definition and the meaning that they give to the words themselves.
Then others are invited up into the clouds to debate these definitions.
Okay, but: I have no idea how “for all practical purposes” this is relevant to either the dilemma that I am faced with on this side of the grave or the obliteration of “I” on the other side of it.
How is this sort of “salvation” relevant to the conflicting goods embedded in the issues I raise or to death itself?
And however theists debate the superiority of the Gods, they all have to eventually get around to the part about immortality and salvation. If only because that is basically religion in a nutshell.
So what?
Well, tell that to the religious fanatics and the political ideologues who [historically] insisted that not only is there no gap between what they believed is true and all one would need to know in order to determine this but that everyone else was obligated to believe it in turn.
Or tell that to the objectivists here who become incensed at others because they refuse to swallow their own TOE hook, line and sinker. Who then resort to huffing and puffing and name-calling and ad-homs.
If we live in a world without God, there does not appear [to me] to be a way in which to know “how one ought I to live.”
Not essentially, objectively, deontologically.
And that makes all the difference in the world – this one – when it comes time for the folks in power to legislate into existence behaviors that are either prescribed or proscribed.
My guess? Because we disagree regarding what constitutes an example.
Thus:
But isn’t that what all of the objectivists note regarding their own TOE? And they either are or are not able to demonstrate if what they argue is true is in sync with what is in fact true. Speculations about the “theoretical possibility of a fading away of the blue from the light by a particular mechanism” are either more or less in accordance with whatever constitutes Existence itself.
But, again, the fact that you reconfigured your thinking here to be more in line with Phyllo’s clearly indicates that this can happen again. And, indeed, that further information/knowledge may well be forthcoming that reconfigures the thinking of both of you.
And that is with respect to interactions unfolding in the either/or world.
On a thread devoted to theistic renditions of inferior Gods, how is this relevant? What here must be “absoultely true” in order to be in sync with RM/AO.
How is the Real God to be factored in here? For, say, “all practical purposes” in our day to day interactions?
Given that theology [the critical study of the nature of the divine] would seem to be greatly concerned with the extant relationship between the divine and human interactions out in a world of conflicting goods, political economy and oblivion.
Okay, note a set of circumstances we might all be familiar with and discuss these contingencies as construed from your own particular ontology.
That’s my point: No one really knows what it means to discuss “the existence of Existence”. Why? Because we are encompassed in it ourselves and [here and now] don’t have access to all of the knowledge that would be needed to grasp it. It’s just that there are folks [including some philosophers and scientists] who note that right from the start of any particular discussion. You claim that “RM/AO is a completion of Science, not a substitute” but how have you actually demonstrated it?
Other than in claiming to have.
And by keeping RM/AO and the Real God as far removed from actual human interactions in the is/ought world as most such intellectual contraptions intend to.
Note to others [again]:
He claims to have done this. Do you agree that he has? If so, note what you deem to be the best example of this.
My “comfort zone”? I take comfort in being entangled in my dilmma embedded in what I construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningingless world that will end for me with the obliteration of “I” for all time to come!!!
This of course speaks volumes regarding the extent to which RM/AO has become a deeply engrained psychological defense mechanism for you, James.
Unless of course I’m wrong.
True. But I make that crucial distinction between those thoughts in your head that you believe are true and those thoughts in your head that you can demonstrate others are obligated to believe in turn.
For example, I think that Donald Trump is now the President of the United States. On the other hand, I’ve never actually been to Washington D.C. of late, and seen him in the Oval Office doing presidential things.
All I can suggest is that what I think is true here can be demonstrated as in fact true for all of us.
I merely shift the discussion from that which can be demonstrated as in fact true to those things that we believe are true, but: but instead seem to revolve more around the meaning I construe regarding the existential interaction of self, value judgments and political power.
For example, “I” believe that Trump is a terrible president.
But to what extent can I demonstrate that this is more than just a political prejudice, a subjective point of view rooted in dasein? How on earth would I be able to demonstrate not only that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same, but that this belief is wholly in sync with whatever needs to be known about the existence of Existence itself?
Obviously you have no idea how such works. If you run out of things to whine about, you have to face having no excuse - comfort in staying afraid and desperately finding something to whine about.
Exactly.
Once again, my friend, I have managed to reduce you down to retorts.
On the other hand, your TOE remains intact. My guess? All the way to the grave.
Unless of course you’re wrong.
Not a chance, right? 
It’s easy to, as you put it, “reduce me to retorts”. Merely ask a question that I answer, then reply with your typical BS. After such, I really couldn’t care less what you say or think.
Yappy New Here to one and all! 
That is my point I raised in the “God is an impossibility” thread, i.e.
- The empirical perfection is possible - e.g. a 300 pt perfect game in bowling.
- Absolute perfection - e.g. God which is impossible and moot.
I would say your ‘ALL one need to know about existence …’ is at best a speculation of the impossible.
As I wrote somewhere 'GAP management is the most critical aspect of life re planning and controlling the results to what is planned. However we can only plan and manage a GAP effectively with an empirically possible objective or limit. [with one exception re morality].
Your ‘ALL knowledge necessary’ and ‘ultimate limit of knowledge’ are impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.
In this particular case of yours it is most optimal to forget about any Gap derived from comparison of an actual to an impossible limit [apples and oranges]. The most effective is to work from the known into the empirical possible to be known to move forward with the best effort [improving] one can.
In your case you are taking a leap across a canyon without support and this is more like dogma than knowledge.
Note from Russell’s The History of Western Philosophy :
As implied from Russell’s above, when you think too far ahead beyond the empirically- possible, you are not doing philosophy but something akin to theology from the other side of the non-man’s land.
Kant understood your kind of dilemma and he stated;
I would suggest you do a paradigm shift and reframe your problem and you will not have any dilemma at all in this critical case.
As I had mentioned you have to break down your existing problems into its relevant manageable units, discard the moot points and reframe a feasible and resolvable problem for yourself.
There is a lot of work to do on this regarding theory and practice.
The Generic Problem re 4NT-8FP will be useful guide.
The Reframing Matrix
Using Creative Perspectives to Solve Problems
mindtools.com/pages/article/newCT_05.htm
When you’re stuck on a problem, it often helps to look at it from another perspective. A “fresh pair of eyes” can be all that you need to come up with a great solution.
As Anomaly said it, nothing but a sea of linguistic ambiguity.
Come on, James, if this is how you really felt, you would never make the attempts that you occasionally do to engage in actual substantive exchanges with me.
Instead, it appears [to me] more an attempt on your part to yank the exchange up onto the skyhooks – to attach it more or less didactically to your definitional logic.
When I refuse to go up there, and tug mightily on the exchange in order bring it down to earth – to gauge your capacity to connect the dots between RM/AO and 1] the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave as they relate to 2] what you imagine your fate to be on the other side – you abandon the exchange.
Instead, you invariably make me the issue, huffing and puffing with one or another retort.
Over and again I have noted that gap between your generally conservative political values in the SGE forum and your hopelessly abstract “analyses” that tend to pervade the philosophy forum.
How “in your head” do you make a connection between them? That’s the focus I wish to explore with you [with all objectivists] by bringing the parts deemed to be philosophical [technically] down into the world of actual human social, political and economic interactions.
And, in particular, when they precipitate behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments out in the is/ought world that seems to revolve by and large around the question, “how ought one to live”?
So, you are acknowledging it is likely impossible that any mere mortals will ever know all there is to know about existence itself. And, so, short of that, folks will have to fill in the blanks with more or less sheer conjecture. My point is merely to speculate that the tools of philosophy may well be of limited use as this pertains to human interactions out in any particular is/ought worlds – as this pertains in turn to any number of conjectures regarding human interaction in either a God or a No God world.
As for the either/or world, consider the points raised in this documentary from the Science Channel: sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … holes-real
It is [one suspects] staggering what we are likely not to know about the relationship between a God, the God, my God, the “human condition” and the explanation behind existence itself.
I can only point out yet again that I have no clear understanding of what “on earth” you are talking about in this particular “intellectual contraption”. As, for instance, it relates to human interactions revolving around the points raised in the OP.
If only Kant were still around. That way I could ask him to explain what “on earth” he is talking about here. What particular illusion pertaining to what particular error revolving around what particular conflicted human behaviors embedded in what particular context relating to what particular narrative revolving around what particualar rendition of an alleged transcending font?
Pure reason indieed.
On the other hand, when objectivists get around to this part what they invariably mean is this: that only when I shift my thinking to be in fully in alignment with their own, will everything become clearer. About “the future”, for example. A world in which everyone thinks like they do.