God is an Impossibility

That looks like a concession to me. Deal!

Perfection defined as “all yang and no yin” cannot exist. This is the essential problem of man… trying to have all good and no bad. There is no such thing and it cannot even be conceptualized.

What is good? What is bad? Well, it’s relative and variable. Right now i have a fever so I walk outside and the cold air feels good and then it feels too cold so I come back inside and the warm air feels good and then it’s too warm again. So, good is lack of bad and both vary. You could say, “why not set the temp so it’s perfect?” Because then it would be flat and it wouldn’t feel good. We have to eat bitter in order to taste sweet.

Why are sharks no smarter after 400 million years of evolution? Because, obviously, sharks are optimally intelligent. If they were smarter, they would get bored and be so curious that they’d get into trouble. Or perhaps intelligence just doesn’t make any difference. Who knows, but the point is that sharks ARE perfect. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have been selected for.

Nature doesn’t make mistakes. Have you ever seen a misshapen cloud? Everything that exists is perfect.

Can you imagine a perfect warrior? One that has all strengths and no disadvantages? Would he be big and strong? Well, then that’s his weakness I could exploit. Strength requires energy, so starve him. Strength requires mass, so lead his fat ass onto a weak bridge. Every advantage has a disadvantage.

What you have done is proved the jehovah god cannot exist because that god cannot be perfect as they popularly proclaim he is. Well, either he doesn’t exist or he is not perfect, but in the bible that god does have a left and right hand.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

They don’t like to admit that.

Jesus sits on the right hand of god, but who sits on the left? The district attorney sits on the left. The defense is on the right and the accuser is on the left.

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

God has a left and right hand and he has a yetzer hara, evil inclination, an element of irreducible rascality. He couldn’t exist if he didn’t, as you have proven.

Nope.

I understand human believe in all sorts of God [inferior, superior, perfect, not perfect, immutable, etc.] but as I had explained and justify a God by default MUST be an ‘absolutely perfect being’ so that it does not end up eating the shit of another greater God.

Any theist who is made aware of this limitation of their God will definitely opt for the ontological God -an absolutely perfect being - since it is as easy as just a shifting of thoughts to a more secured idea of God.

Nature doesn’t make mistakes. Have you ever seen a misshapen cloud? Everything that exists is perfect.

Yes nature doesn’t make mistakes, i.e. perfect but that is only a conditional perfection.
What is perfect within Nature is relative perfect of empirical things.
What is in nature is never absolutely perfect.
Note nature as in reality is co-created by humans, thus conditional.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193726

What I am arguing is, the idea of God is the only thing that is claimed to be absolutely prefect primarily to ensure one’s God do not have to eat the shit of another greater God.
Thus God MUST be an absolutely perfect being than which no greater perfection exists.

You said you have no issue, so I said deal, then you said you have issue. That’s underhanded. You offer a deal, I accept, then you renege.

  1. perfect god can’t exist
  2. lesser god can’t exist because it would eat shit from the perfect god that we’ve already determined can’t exist.

If you can’t see the logic in that, then I will have to renege my stated support of your intelligence as it appears I may have been wrong. I’m sorry, but look:

So either you’re wrong in one of those statements or you have a mental handicap of some sort that prevents you from seeing the contradiction.

I did not offer any deal. It was your misunderstanding and note below you fallacy of conflation.

I presume you understand sets, system and perspectives.

1) perfect god can’t exist
This is considered within an empirical rational reality.
Within an empirical rational reality, I claim an absolutely perfect God can’t exists, i.e. impossible. Theists would claim otherwise.

2) lesser god can’t exist because it would eat shit from the perfect god that we’ve already determined can’t exist.
This point 2 do not involve me and an empirical rational reality, but it is confined within the illusory world of the theists.

Thus you got it wrong, it should be;
If theists insist God exists, then the existence of a lesser god of theists-X will not be favored because it would have to eat shit from the greatest absolutely perfect God that theists-Y insist exist.

So note there are different perspectives and sense which involve different type of theists.

What you have done and lacking in thinking by conflating all the different senses and perspectives to invent your straw man.

Btw, I don’t need your patronization.
I personally know where I stand.

So either you’re wrong in one of those statements or you have a mental handicap of some sort that prevents you from seeing the contradiction.
[/quote]
Same explanation above.

What you have done and lacking in thinking in conflating all the different senses and perspectives to invent your straw man.

A contradiction is ‘P’ and ‘not-P’ in the same time and sense [perspective].

Now who is the one with a mental handicap?

Yes you did; it’s plain for everyone to see. First you cheat, and now you lie. Right here:

If you have no issue, then stop having issues.

Yes, me too.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E … ger_effect

You’ll stop at nothing to avoid admitting you’re wrong and it’s astonishing the sacrifices you will make to that end. You’ve thrown your ethics right out the window and slaughtered your dignity on the altar of your ego. I’m not sure what else I could learn from this interaction as I’m thoroughly convinced you’d throw your only son under the bus to avoid admitting defeat and I suppose I now know what I needed to discover. Thank you for you time, but there is no point to us going round and round any further.

NOtice Prismatic that this reaction to you and the way you post is becoming the rule. You are getting useful feedback about how you communicate and interact with people. There is very little we can do to ensure you learn from this. Fortunately, you lose something if you cannot learn about yourself, we don’t.

I was not looking at it as deal per se. It is just a problem of semantics.

Note you are deliberately twisting the point. I stated I have no critical issue with someone choose lesser gods of which there are plenty out there, e.g. a monkey God, elephant God, Neptune, a god that eat the shit of another, etc. The ultimate is such theists still have to provide justifiable evidence to prove their God exists if they insist such a God is real.

I still have a critical issue with theists who choose an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God. Note based on their holy books, appx 6 billion theists believe in religions that represent an absolutely perfect God.

You are going in the direction of ad hominen instead of present valid arguments.

I have no problem with that if you have run out of arguments to counter my views.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum, any one is free to express their views and any one is free to counter or agree whatever views is presented.
So just do the necessary, present your arguments or counter the arguments of others. There is no need to resort to ad hominens [an infraction in any forum].

I suggest you focus on the arguments rather than judging my character.
I will know how to learn from someone if I think there is need to and this had happened loads of time earlier in various forums and even at present [mostly elsewhere].

When I first started discussing in forums I have a disgust for homosexuality but since then have learned to accept [via knowledge] homosexuality as an unavoidable fact of humanity. There are many other things I have learned which you are not aware of.

So far what I have presented are philosophical arguments. If you think you have counter arguments then present them. There is no need to get emotionally and trying to teach me this or that.

The nasty responses I get from theists is the same since the days I started critiquing theism. I have even received threat of death in forums. Note in extreme cases, theists will even kill those who critique theism. The nasty responses I get from forum here are from the same psychological responses but of mild and low degrees.

Wow. That really explains Prismatic’s attitude!

Pris,

For the sake of this discussion, I’m going to use the term “absolute perfection” in the way that you’ve applied it in your argument, even though I think its redundant and quite nonsensical.

How do you know, qua knowledge that absolute perfection is an impossibility? Something that is absolutely perfect could exist outside of the things that you know are possible to exist. IOW, to claim “absolute perfection is an impossibility”, you must know everything, everywhere, that has, is and will be. Obviously you don’t, so the claim that “absolute perfection is an impossibility” is based upon your limited knowledge. In short, to know that absolute perfection is an impossibility, you must be omniscient. Thus your 1st premise is based upon incomplete knowledge and is therefore false.

Why your 2nd premise “God imperatively must be absolutely perfect” is false has been expounded prior to this, but you refuse to accept it. It is simply that absolute perfection is not a predicate of existence, therefore an absolutely perfect God may or may not exist “imperative” does not necessarily follow. God could exist and not be absolutely perfect and God could exist and be absolutely perfect, there is no way that we can know for sure. We cannot say that it is impossible that an absolutely perfect God could exist because there’s a list of things that we think define absolute perfection that cannot exist – that is just arbitrary and based upon limited knowledge. Who defines as a certainty what qualities make God absolutely perfect? Because theistic ideals claim that God is absolutely perfect does not necessitate that the God they’re describing exists. So your 2nd premise is false.

Because both of your premises are false, your conclusion is also false, hence your syllogism is invalid.

Yes, you’re right, I am going in the direction of ad homs, but it’s not my argument nor does it mean I’m out of arguments, just that I feel I’m arguing with a brick wall and desired to give feedback.

I agree that an absolute perfect god can’t exist because an absolute perfect anything can’t exist because it makes no sense. Something can’t be both big/strong and small/nimble at the same time. There is no advantage that doesn’t have a disadvantage.

But there is a sense in which god can be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and that’s if god is the only entity in existence who is playing the roles of everything in the universe (the Brahman god). If there is nothing that is not god, then obviously he is everywhere all at once, knows everything, and controls everything. But that’s quite different from the Jehovah god who is a separate entity who reigns supreme with all power, knowledge, and is somehow everywhere yet still distinct from all other entities that he has created from nothing. That god seems to me a nonsensical contrivance conjured for control of the people.

Note “absolute perfection” is not my invention for the idea of God.
This term and idea is used by advanced theologians as the final and ultimate definition to represent their idea of a God.

Note my first premise should read with this phrase - within an empirical-rational reality.
Thus,
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

Note my basis of knowledge in this case is based on reason, i.e. reasoning and arguments.
Surely you know 1 + 1 = 4, 5 or >, is absolutely impossible within the decimal system and the empirical-rational reality.
Do you or anyone has to “know everything, everywhere, that has, is and will be?”
Answer: Has to be NO!
So does anyone has to be omniscient to know the above?
Answer: Has to be NO!

Thus your counter is blown to pieces.

Your above is a straw man.

Why “God imperatively must be absolutely perfect?”
Due to psychological desperation, the idea of God was invented [conjectured]. But because the idea started of with crude speculations which are irrational, the
silly’ idea of ‘God exists’ [as bearded man in the sky, etc.] were bombarded with sound rational counter by atheists and others.
Thus over time, there was a continual trend of defenses against the irrational arguments till it was pushed and reached the ultimate arguments [‘ceiling’], i.e. the ontological God [absolutely perfect] as thought out by various theologians, e.g. St. Anselm, Descartes and others.

But in arriving at the idea of the ontological God, it takes the thought of God outside the empirical-rational realm of reality into the realm of pure reason which is a crude primal form of reason.

Note I have given many arguments [e.g. have to eat sh1t, etc.] why the thought of God must be idealized as an absolutely perfect ontological God than which no greater exists.

What is great is I have also provided the answer why the idea of God must be idealized, i.e. the reason is,
Due to psychological desperation, i.e.

  1. The above point has been recognized by many Eastern spirituality since thousands of years ago. So I have theoretical and practical evidence to support for my view, the idea of God is “Due to psychological desperation.”

  2. I have also shown how the idea of God and experience of God can ooze out from the brain/ mind due to an altered state of consciousness from various mental illness, brain damage, drugs, chemicals, electronic stimulation, etc. etc.
    Most of the religions [especially theistic religions] were founded by a ‘personality’ who have had altered states of consciousness of God which is likely to have arose from the above reasons of activities in the brain rather than a pre-existing God choosing them as the messenger or prophet.

  3. Others -

In addition to my reason-based demolition of the God argument, i.e. an impossibility, based on Occam’s my explanation in 1 and 2 as supported by empirical evidence is a more simpler and reasonable explanation than the idea of a God [illusory and impossible] based strongly on faith reason.

Hey, you are admitting to ‘ad homs’?? =; , becareful, the moderators will be taking note of this admission.
As to you points above, note my reply to Fanman above.

Pris,

I never claimed that it was. I understand that there is a consensus amongst theists that God is absolutely perfect.

What difference does that make to your syllogism/argument? It is a given that when you say “Absolute perfection is an impossibility” you mean in reality. The qualification “within an empirical-rational reality.” isn’t necessary.

I don’t understand how what you’ve stated here invalidates my refutation of your argument? Perhaps you could make it clearer/explain in more detail? My point is, how do you know that absolute perfection cannot exist in reality? You have to substantiate that claim, but it is not something that you could possibly know, because your (our) knowledge of reality is limited. Should I just take your word for it? You might as well be claiming that absolute perfection is impossible to exist in reality because you say so. The term “absolute perfection” is not self-contradictory or an oxymoron, it is used for emphasis.

What you’ve stated seems like a straw man, because I didn’t claim that 1 + 1 = 4, 5 or > is possible. You are refuting something of your own design, not something that I’ve claimed.

A straw man? Please explain why you think its a straw man? You’re arguing that “God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.” I’m not attempting to refute a claim that you didn’t make.

This is clearly speculation, not fact. This does not demonstrate why it is “imperative” that God must absolutely perfect, it demonstrates why you think that people have arrived at the conclusion that God is absolutely perfect. There is an epistemological difference that you don’t seem to recognise.

Pris,

IMV, we cannot claim as a premise that X is impossible, unless we know that X is impossible or that X being impossible is axiomatic. Since in this case we cannot know that X (absolute perfection) is impossible, and we know that X being impossible is not axiomatic, the premise that X is impossible is false. Are you claiming that to know that absolute perfection cannot exist and/or that absolute perfection being an impossibility is axiomatic?

What?

Your conclusion is that god does not exist, that god was invented.

But here you are using the “fact” that god was invented to justify one of your premises. Your premise is based on your conclusion. That makes your syllogism circular.

I can see how, psychologically speaking, it is or would be imperative for people to believe that their God is absolutely perfect.

Why do theologians preach about the absolute perfection of God? Perhaps because they understand human nature. Would this be a loss of integrity for them? Perhaps for many, if not most, it is also because they have no other recourse than absolute belief if they are to remain theologians without experiencing conflicting goods.

I do have my doubts as to whether many theologians and priests et cetera actually believe and hold to the absolute perfection of their God, especially those who are logical and rational thinkers and questioners. But then, what do I know?

Who would want to believe and worship a God who was lesser than ALL perfect, ALL omniscient, ALL omnipotent, ALL ubiquitous? et cetera.

Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Who could feel and receive the warmth, compassion, love and inner security needed in times of the above-mentioned if their belief was not absolute in these attributes of their God?

There is a difference between what people want and what there is.

A god may exist Who does not have the characteristics that have been attributed to Him/Her/It by theists.

Prismatic does not show that such a God does not exist.

Why ask dad for advice if he is not perfect?

The point is one cannot pin down ‘what is reality’ absolutely - i.e. unconditionally.

Thus there are many perspectives to reality, i.e. from the common sense reality to that of Quantum World plus the rational perspectives of reality.

Therefore the concept of “empirical-rational reality” is the most refined and to differentiate it from common sense & scientific reality.
The concept of “empirical-rational reality” encompass the scientific basis of reality plus the highest philosophical basis of reality [critical thinking, wisdom, etc.].
There is no higher basis of reality than the “empirical-rational reality.”

My point is I don’t have to know [empirically & rationally] everything to ‘know’ [by reason only].
I can know by reason only and a priori that 1 + 1 = 5 is wrong.
Thus I can know by reason only that “absolute perfection” is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

It is not based on my words of a mere statement. I have argued very extensively what I meant by ‘absolute perfection’. Note the critical word here is ‘absolute’ = totally unconditional. In addition you need to differentiate between absolute and relative perfection.

You are stating it is impossible to know everything because our knowledge is limited, so my thesis ‘God is an impossibility’ is limited.
You are wrong here because you have failed to differentiate between “knowing” empirically and “knowing” rationally by reason only.
Actually you have messed up everything with the term “knowing” because “knowing” is confined only to the empirical as knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs [JTB].
Proving by reason only is not precisely “knowing” it is actually theorizing.

It is not a pure speculations but one premises that is based on actual thinkings of theists throughout the history of mankind.
Note I have abstracted the above ‘Why God must be absolutely perfect’ from the evolutionary idealization [thinkings] of God throughout the history of mankind. I suggest you do a research on this topic. I have also given extensive explanations on this premise.

The clue is this,
theists invented [conjectured] a lie [i.e. the idea of God] to deal with a real psychological issue re the existential crisis.
Such an irrational lie is so obvious to the average thinkers who will obviously question the irrational claims of the theists that a God exists.
This has happened since the idea of God first emerged and theists has been defending their irrational beliefs to secure the psychological security with all sort of lies, i.e. lies upon lies that a God exists culminating to the final ontological God, where they do not have anymore room to lie.