God is an Impossibility

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.

My point is people can ask anyone for advice/assistance knowing they aren’t perfect.

Pris,

This observation is not correct. I never made any such distinction, you have. I stated “know”, I made no reference to a distinction between empiricism and reason… Knowledge, whether arrived at through empiricism or reason is knowledge. Your distinction is yet again, arbitrary.

Ah, the textbook straw man argument. Where in my arguments did I propose that “God exists”?

I didn’t know this was a topic of debate. If “absolute perfection” means “all-powerful”, then it’s contradictory since having the power of being big and small cannot exist in the same being. Every advantage has a disadvantage so there is no way of having all the advantages and none of the disadvantages just like you couldn’t collect the head-side of coins while discarding the tail-sides.

In 400 million years sharks have not gotten any smarter which can only mean that intelligent sharks are not favored by natural selection; therefore the intelligence of sharks is optimal and perfect. In that way, everything that exists is perfect because it is the result of countless selection processes which honed the perfection that exists.

There are indeed two ways of speaking about perfection, depending how you define your terms.

I know you’re replying to prism with that, but it reminded me of Goethe who said “Thinking… is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas.”

I posit there is nothing that is not empirical because all empiricism is conceptual. You aren’t looking at a tree, but a concept in your mind that you think is a tree. Do you see what I mean? (By seeing what I mean, that is empirical observation according to myself and Goethe, apparently). Deduction and empiricism is the same thing. There is no such thing as a priori either.

Serendipper,

I don’t think that something being “all-powerful” is necessarily contradictory, as something can be “all powerful” and be big or small. Something not being big and small doesn’t mean that it isn’t “absolutely perfect”, but I think that conclusion depends on what we perceive as something being “absolute perfection”. Also, in terms of something being “all powerful” I don’t agree that every advantage has a disadvantage, what would be the disadvantage of being “all powerful”?

I agree, and perhaps there are more than two, but not (I don’t think) in the way that Prismatic has expounded. To my understanding if something is perfect, it describes the maximal state that something can achieve – the absolute. I understand that there is relative perfection, which means that the perfection being described is relative to a condition or relative to something else, but I don’t make a distinction between “absolute perfection” and “perfection”, because perfection necessarily describes an absolute. So the term “absolute perfection” is the same as saying that there’s an “absolute, absolute.” It implies that something can be “more perfect”, than perfect which doesn’t seem correct to me. The term “absolute perfection” is used for emphasis, but to me it doesn’t mean anything other than perfection.

That’s no problem, Goethes’ quote makes sense to me.

I see what you mean, but IMV a tree is something which exists both outside of me, and as a concept in my mind. Why do you think there’s no such thing as a priori?

IOW, you don’t have a response.

In a thread where you are supposedly proving that “God is an Impossibility”, you “don’t even have to show God does not exist”?

That’s ridiculous.

Hmm… that is interesting lol :-k Well, I wouldn’t describe all-powerful as an advantage, but a collection of advantages. It’s the box that contains all boxes, but doesn’t contain itself because otherwise it would be a box with an inside, but no outside.

Statements concerning all things are illogical. If we say all things are moving, then there is no way to verify that since there is no still reference point by which to judge and it’s therefore a meaningless statement.

Bruce Lee would say water is all-powerful because it conforms to any shape and can yield, but also crash. But earth can dam water and fire can boil it away. As soon as you claim an advantage, you’ve also claimed a disadvantage. White has the first move in chess, which is an advantage, but it’s also a disadvantage. Throwing the first punch is an advantage, but also a disadvantage since you’ve committed to a strategy. To be all powerful would mean being able to throw the first punch without throwing the first punch. White could move first without black knowing what the move is. It’s impossible.

Alan Watts related it to having full control of a woman by mixing up some potion that upon being exposed to it, women do whatever he says. So he says what good is that? It would be like a blowup doll and it is only that he doesn’t have full control that a woman is enjoyable. So, the disadvantage of having all power is boredom and a ceasing of manifestation; one can only live if they lay some power down. God cannot be in control of everything or what sense would there be to having anything?

Is the species of sharks absolutely perfect? Could you make a better shark? What is better? Let’s say that better is being able to find food easier, well then it eats all its food and eventually starves. So if there is no way to improve upon the shark, isn’t the shark absolutely perfect?

Well, perhaps what I should have said is there is no difference between a priori and a posteriori and it’s for the same reason there is no difference between deduction and empiricism.

[i]A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies (“All bachelors are unmarried”), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).

A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.[/i]

There is nothing independent of experience since experience defines reality.

At the fundamental level there are only energy fields (gluon field, Higgs field, electric and magnetic fields and who knows what else.) There is no such thing as matter as such (Max Planck said “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such!”)

In nature, there is no tree, just vibrations, oscillations of energy and a tree as a thing only exists because we call it into existence in our minds. In nature, there are no things, except the one big thing. The universe is a only atom… the a-tomos… the indivisible whole.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear the noise, does it make a sound? It will create a pressure wave through the air, but it takes ears and a brain to make sound and each organism will create the sound differently.

You are mistaken.

Taking mathematics as an example … mathematics is pure manipulation of symbols based on specific rules. The symbols need not represent anything real nor do the rules. You do not need any experience with real objects (apples or sticks ,etc) to use a statement like 3+2=5 and to accept it as correct.

The same is true for statements like “all bachelors are unmarried”. The words are merely symbols. You can use them in a syllogism without knowing what “bachelor” and “unmarried” means.
In fact, the purpose of syllogisms is to arrive at concluding statements which you have not experienced. If you had experienced it, then you would not need a syllogism.