God is an Impossibility

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.

Note my point above where you messed up and conflate ‘knowing’ [empirical] with ‘theorizing’ [thoughts and ideas only].
For anything to be knowledge [to know] it must first go through the theorizing process as a thesis and feasible to be knowledge, then be subjected to empirical verification, testing and justification to qualify as knowledge.

The point here is the idea ‘God exists’ cannot even be theorized as feasible for empirical verification to qualify as Justified True Beliefs to be known.
Your proposal “God exists” is like proposing ‘1 + 1 = 5’, which is impossible to start with as a theory to be justified as knowledge to be known.

The theists insistence ‘God exists’ is equivalent to ‘1 + 1 = 5’ is purely a fantasy for psychological security. The point is who cares whether a thought [God exists] is logical or not as long as it works to soothe the real terrible existential angst oozing from the psyche.

The critical factor is whether the ‘thought’ works or not, e.g. a man/woman can think [fantasize] in mind the most sexiest woman/man and experience a real orgasm from merely thinking.
For the theists, mere thought of God exists [even it is irrational and not real] enable a constant divine ‘orgasm’ [relieve from existential angst].

Study my full argument properly.

It is a very simple rational choice to pick the following;

  1. An absolutely perfect God no greater can exists and no other gods can greater and dominate, or

  2. A lesser god or gods who has the potential to be subordinated or subservient to another God which is greater and more powerful.

In choosing the above, one do not have to climb Mt. Everest or cross the 7 seas to qualify, all one need to merely to shift one’s thinking and belief.
So it is so easy to say, I accept my God is an absolutely perfect God and thus be assured of all possibilities, especially ending in heaven with eternal life after physical death.

Actually to opt by mere thinking only in choosing the better or ‘greatest no greater can exists’ is very instinctual. The concept of one-up is so naturally and instinctual to humans right from the time they can think and this sort of thinking is still very common in playrounds and amongst children.
Especially on the question of the afterlife, one need the best and the greatest God who is the most powerful to be able to grant eternal life in heaven.

It is already happening, Allah of the Quran claims to be the absolute perfect God who can kick-ass all other gods which are deemed to be inferior and corrupted. Allah can also stop the other gods from conveying their believers to heaven with eternal life, instead Allah will send all non-believers to Hell. Surely to counter this all other theists has no other choice but to believe [so easy to shift thoughts] to an absolutely perfect God [highest possible] so be on par with Allah of the Quran.

Note I have shown ‘God as what there is’ [claimed by any theist] is moot and an impossibility to start with.
The anology to God exists is like ‘1 + 1 = 5’ [decimal system].
So I don’t even have to show God does not exist.

Yes, dad …
When children are young, dad is the most powerful in the world who can give them the psychological security.
But when the grow older, the realize their dad is limited [not absolutely perfect] to grant them the psychological security [life after death]. This is why the most active theist proper are those in their late teens who has to cling to an invisible being, i.e. God the greatest who can provide the psychological security against inevitable mortality.

There is a book that rely on the above thesis to justify how God emerged onto the consciousness of humans. Can’t remember which?

Pris,

“1+1 = 5” and “absolute perfection is impossible” are not within the same category of claims. The claim that 1+1 = 5 is incorrect, it would be seen as irrational and illogical to claim that it is. The claim that absolute perfection is impossible, is an assertion and must be proven in order to be a valid claim. The former claim is not debatable, the latter is.

No, I don’t. In reality, the term “perfection” describes an absolute.

That’s is not an accurate reflection of what I claimed. You may need to re-read what I stated.

In either case, you cannot know that absolute perfection is an impossibility. Absolute perfection could exist and you’re not aware of it.

If I am to take these three statements as being a true reflection of your thinking (which I have no reason not to), then by your own admission, you’re arguing that reason does not allow us to claim something as knowledge, because only the empirical can be claimed as knowledge - proving things by reason is not precisely knowledge (whatever that means), it is theorising. If that is the case, then by your own argumentation, because your argument/syllogism is based upon reason and not anything empirical, you’re only theorising that “God is impossible” and have not proven anything as knowledge, because to prove something as knowledge it has to be empirical.