God is an Impossibility

We know via reason ‘a square-circle is an impossibility’ within an empirical-rational reality .
Therefore a square-circle is impossible to exist within an empirical-rational reality.
If that is the case, do I have to show a square-circle does not exist within an empirical-rational reality?

Thus that 'God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, is the same with the above situation. I don’t have to show ‘God does not exists’ because it is impossible for a God to exists within an empirical-rational reality.

What is that which Kant couldn’t see?

I agree with the above.

There are two categories of experiences, i.e.;

  1. Experiences during one’s life time - individual and collective,

  2. Evolutionary Experiences of mankind [collective] throughout history [millions of years] and embedded in the DNA and is passed on to the next generation. This will also include the collective experiences of living things from billions of years ago.

I have stated my syllogism is based purely on reason alone, but in a more refined sense, reason is ultimately traceable to experience, not a posteriori but the embedded experience re 2 above. Kant’s Categories arise from such evolved experiences.

Note
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
amazon.com/Evolution-Reason … 0521791960

Your square-circle example is irrelevant.

There is no logical contradiction in a god. Stop pretending that there is. ](*,)

Well I don’t really know if Kant could see that there is no actual distinction between a priori and posteriori, but wiki says “The Latin phrases a priori and a posteriori are philosophical terms of art popularized by Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason”, so I just assumed, since they are his terms, that he couldn’t or otherwise didn’t see the falsity of the differentiation.

I also don’t see the value in creating the distinction, which seems to be nothing more than a source of bickering, as if we need another, about where on a slippery slope that a line belongs which divides such things as pri from post, life from non-life, right from wrong, which guns to ban, and what constitutes illegal speech.

Yes and it is really by such evolutionary experiences that we experience empiricism and deduction because our brain and sense organs are themselves memory of that evolutionary experience, though I’m not sure if those experiences are the subject or object of observation. The evolutionary experiences comprise the brain which is a re-member-ance (as opposed to dismember) of those experiences which must be the subject that observes the inference and the empirical.

From Goethean Science:

Knowing would be an absolutely useless process if something
complete were conveyed to us in sense experience. All drawing together, ordering, and grouping
of sense-perceptible facts would have no objective value. Knowing has meaning only if we do
not regard the configuration given to the senses as a finished one, if this configuration is for us a
half of something that bears within itself something still higher that, however, is no longer sense-perceptible.
There the human spirit steps in. It perceives that higher element. Therefore thinking
must also not be regarded as bringing something to the content of reality. It 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. Idealism is therefore quite compatible with the principle of
empirical research.
The idea is not the content of subjective thinking, but rather the result of
research. Reality, insofar as we meet it with open senses, confronts us. It confronts us in a form
that we cannot regard as its true one; we first attain its true form when we bring our thinking
into flux. Knowing means: to add the perception of thinking to the half reality of sense
experience so that this picture of half reality becomes complete.

rsarchive.org/Books/Downloa … iner-1.pdf

What does that mean?

Interesting

Obviously theists will claim there is no contradiction in a god within THEIR personal perspective. But being personal, that is very subjective.

Theists insist God is real within the empirical realm, i.e. can be communicated to and answer prayers.
Philosophically, in terms of reality there is a contradiction, i.e. a pure rational being cannot exist within an empirical realm.

According to Kant the differentiation is critical to understand the dichotomy between ‘Empiricism’ versus ‘Rationalism’.
Note Hume’s challenge, one cannot get an ought [from reasoning] from an “is” [empiricism].
Kant argued yes, we can but we need to differentiate and understand the a priori and a posteriori.

I agree with the following;
“Knowing would be an absolutely useless process if something complete were conveyed to us in sense experience”
But further than that, we need to bring in the elements of a priori ideas and a posteriori knowledge. It is a long story to understand how Kant improved on the thoughts of Goethe.

According to Kant, knowledge is not based purely on a posteriori experiences but are influenced by the Categories within the psyche of humans.
The Categories [Kant merely assumed they are there] are actually evolved pure concepts embedded in the brain from our ancestors and back to the first one cell living things.
The pure concept of ‘Cause and Effect’ is inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and embedded deep in the psyche. Why ‘Cause and Effect’ is so significant is because it has survival values thus is embedded deep in the brain.

Pris,

To be clear, are you claiming to have proven that absolute perfection is an impossibility as a priori knowledge?

“Perfection” necessarily describes something possessing qualities or fulfilling conditions that make what is being described as perfect, perfect. If God is absolutely perfect, it is so because there are qualities or conditions which make it absolutely perfect – like having all of the Omni’s (which is a condition). Hence the term “unconditional absolute perfection” doesn’t have any clear meaning. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by “unconditional” as relating to perfection in more detail?

This assertion makes no sense based on what you’ve claimed. Why do you think that humans cannot know absolutes? And if that is what you think, why are you making absolute claims? The claim that “God is an impossibility” is absolute. If you cannot know absolutely, why are you making an absolute claim?

Again, could you please define what you mean by “totally unconditional”.

Again, as according to your argumentation, to have proven something as knowledge, it must be as you have defined here. However, your argument/syllogism doesn’t conform to your own standard of what constitutes knowledge. Therefore, as according to your own standard, you haven’t proven anything, because if something has been proven, it is necessarily knowledge.

Same as above.

This seems like another straw man. 1. What “sound reason” is your theory/syllogism based upon? Your conclusion is based upon premises that cannot be proven (empirically) and that are not axiomatic. How does that constitute sound reason? 2. What is my idea of God? I never claimed that God exists. You’re are again, refuting something that I haven’t claimed.

Note, what is “higher refined reason”? I searched, but couldn’t find any references explaining what it is.

Serendipper,

Hmm :-k … I think that is a valid point, but it depends on if you think that having such power is an advantage or disadvantage. Some people may feel that having such power is an advantage.

Its difficult to say. I think that sharks are relatively perfect killing machines, but I do not think that they cannot be improved upon in that respect. I don’t know exactly how a shark could be better at what it does, but I see no reason to claim that a shark isn’t perfect.

Try to just analyze the words that are written without trying to psychoanalyze or mind-read the writers.

If you look at the definition of “god”, there is no logical contradiction. A god does not have to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent or absolutely perfect. A god can be fallible and limited.

Yes. And many theists claim exactly that has happened to them.

You say that because you have loaded your definition of god with a bunch of superfluous characteristics.

Thanks and I appreciate that clarifying information.

Obtaining reasoning from empiricism is a problem if one sees them as different just as how a cause causes an effect is a problem if one sees the cause and effect as distinct events. This seems to me an unnecessary problem. We cannot have a knower without a known nor a known without a knower; one doesn’t engender the other, but they arise codependently and together constitute reality.

Goethe seems to be arguing that knowing/understanding/conceptualizing is half subject and half object, just as seeing is half the eye and half the scenery. If that is what Kant is ultimately arguing, then I suppose I agree; however his nomenclature and definitions obscure that realization.

Yes but not all brains can realize the a priori that other brains can which presents yet another slippery slope. Can a lizard grasp the concept of a quantity? But on the other hand plants can apparently perform complex calculations that estimate the amount of sugar that needs to be stored for the night until the sun is expected to rise the next morning. grist.org/living/plants-can-do-math/

Obviously a computer doesn’t perform magic in computation, but is a series of switches that operate in a deterministic fashion like dominoes falling against each other. Likewise viewing a tree is a similar deterministic process of chemistry and is absolutely no different than the mathematical calculations performed by plants. The only way to have a REAL distinction between a priori and posteriori is to conjure magic and insist there is some aspect of humanity that is not native to this universe, otherwise it’s all chemical bubblings and happenings within a continuum with no discontinuities.

Well, it was just an analogy. The real problem is whether all-powerful is a power to be had. Is a tool shed itself a tool? I suppose we can say a garage contains all tools and the garage itself can be a tool to make money by repairing cars, but it’s not an actual tool for repairing the car, but a tool to contain all the other tools (and shield from weather, thieves, etc).

A grocery store can contain all food, but the store is not itself food. Likewise all-powerful is just a container for all the powers.

If 100% power were a power to be had, then 0% power would also be a power to be had, but at the same time it’s not and instead it’s a condition void of power. So all-powerful is not itself a power, but a condition of having all the powers, which is just as impossible as having zero powers.

It’s interesting to note that originally, superman was not intended to fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, but merely that he evolved on a planet with stronger gravity which gave him strong muscles and his eyes evolved in the light of a different star which allowed him to see x-rays. Hollywood embellished the natural into the supernatural because such powers of flight and lasers would require too much energy than what could be accounted for. Superman supposedly derived his energy from the yellow sun, but he was not green indicating chlorophyll, but white which reflects all the high-energy light.

In reality, a gorilla is a real superman since it has tremendous strength, but it also has a large gut and must spend all its day eating, which is a severe disadvantage. Lions and tigers are formidable opponents as well, but they can’t tolerate heat because they can’t sweat. The Cheetah cannot store fat (obviously or it wouldn’t be able to run), so it must eat regularly. House cats are fantastic killing machines, but they can’t fit into the holes that snakes can. Snakes, on the other hand, cannot run or jump to snatch a bird from the air.

There is no way, in reality, to have strength without an energy source (big gut and constant feeding or small gut and regular kills). You cannot fit into holes and also run down prey. You cannot have tough hide and also resist heat by sweating. There is no way to be an all-powerful animal.

Sharks can be improved upon when their environment changes, but at this moment in time they can only be perfect or else they would not exist. In a jigsaw puzzle, each piece fits perfectly even though each piece is different. If one piece were a perfect square, then it would not fit in the puzzle.

FWD to 49:00

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hL1qkEQYgI[/youtube]

Yes, via reason only.

You are confining ‘perfection’ to ‘something’ generally.
But the idea of God to theists is not merely something generally, rather God is unique and God is the only thing that is assigned absolute perfection, i.e. the perfection that is above all general perfections [relative].

“Conditional” mean ‘whatever-is’ is always related to something.
A creation is conditioned by a creator. [logic of causation]
But God as a creator cannot be conditioned by another creator. [claimed by theists]
Therefore God has to be totally unconditional.

Thus whatever perfection that is attributed to a God has to be totally unconditional, i.e. absolute perfection.

I used ‘totally’ to cover whatever perspective one can think of to counter the point.

Get it?

Note, philosophically there is no absolute certainty - Wittgenstein.
But there is relative certainty, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 within the decimal system.

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason.

I am relying on relative certainty, 1 + 1 = 5 is impossible conditioned within the decimal system of arithmetic.

Note my explanation of ‘totally unconditional’.

I defined ‘knowledge’ as Justified True Belief within an empirical-rational reality.

My claim ‘God is an impossibility’ is a proof but it is a proof within the ambit and conditions of reason, higher reason. This is not ‘knowledge’ as defined above.
We can say we have knowledge of the proof by reason, but the proof itself in this case is not ‘knowledge’ in contrast to say a Scientific proof.

Same as the above re ‘knowledge’.

That is another problem, i.e. you don’t have strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge.

Note this for example;

There are many other levels of critical thinking.
Note also lateral thinking versus vertical thinking.

It is so evident, put the thinking abilities of ALL humans within the Normal Distribution, you will find there are people [of some percentile] with higher thinking abilities using their higher ability to reason in contrast the average and stupid people.

You are an agnostic, i.e. you believe the following;

  1. 50% God does not exist.
  2. 50% God exists

Thus you do claim ‘God exists’ with a 50% probability.
I was referring to this ‘God exists’ probability of yours.

To understand the whole, one must understand the parts and their differences and how they are interdependent within the system.
Note for example Yin-Yang within the Tao, one must know understand the principles of each element. You can insist there is no difference between Yin and Yang.
It is the same Kant to differentiate between a priori and a posteriori and explain how they are interdependent with each other to enable knowledge to emerge. You have to read up Kant to understand [not necessary agree] before you critique his views.

Our concern here is with humans not lizards.

To understand why humans accept seeming blindly why 1 + 1 = 2 we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
To understand and resolve Hume’s Problem of Induction, we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
There are many other philosophical issues that require the differentiation between a priori and a posteriori.

Pris,

Okay, I just wanted to clarify your position on that point. If that’s what you think then fine, you think that you have reason to, but I disagree.

You misunderstand. I was initially making a general point about the term “perfection”. If you re-read what I wrote, you’ll see that I specifically gave reference to God. Also, if you take the time to search different dictionaries, you’ll find that the term “absolute perfection”, is only used for emphasis and that the term “perfection” necessarily describes an absolute. You won’t find terms like “general perfections” and there’s probably a valid reason for that.

If God is absolutely perfect, there is a reason that it is. “Reason” in this case denotes qualities or conditions. Therefore, the absolute perfection of God is conditional, because it’s absolute perfection is contingent upon the qualities that it possesses.

No, I don’t. I searched, but found no definition of “conditional” or “unconditional” that matches your description or application of the terms. Perhaps, seeing as you have “strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge” you could provide a reference which supports your use and application of the terms?

I searched, but couldn’t find anything relating to “relative certainty”. Perhaps you could explain what that term means? Based upon what I think you mean, there’s an epistemological difference between “relative certainty” and “a priori knowledge”. With a relative certainty, a change in circumstances could effect the certainty of what is being claimed or posited, but a priori knowledge, as far as I understand the term, is knowledge which is incontrovertible. Viz “All bachelors are unmarried”.

Which means that, whether you agree or not, you’re claiming that your argument/syllogism is axiomatic.

Note, the term “highest” is unnecessary.

Hmm … Do you mean in terms of certainty here?

Which I doesn’t make any sense to me.

This is a straw man. You specifically stated “higher refined reason” which is evidently not the same as “Higher-order thinking”, but since you are claiming that they are essentially the same in terms of reference, you are therefore claiming that you are using higher-order thinking; whilst stating that others are using “crude reasoning”. I think, based upon the submitted arguments, that claim may be both an overestimation of your own ability, and an underestimation of others ability.

That is very interesting. You are of course patently wrong, because I did not make a claim, neither is that an accurate reflection of my thinking. How are you going to use “high-order thinking” to demonstrate that you’re right on this point? You are aware that someone actually has to make a claim before you can assert that they’ve made one? This is just a guess, which I find to be ironically, crude. It is very problematic to tell people specifically what they believe based upon your inferences, as you will arrive at confirmation bias.

Disagree with the above or my conclusion in the syllogism?

Note in this particular discussion, one really has to nit-pick and be very precise with the intended meaning.

When you qualify God as ‘perfect’ then you are implying God is a thing in general.
Whatever way you use perfection, the ‘perfection’ you [as theists insist] attribute to God has be unique.
The most appropriate term to describe God’s perfection which is unique to God only is ‘absolute perfection’.

What is intended here with the term ‘absolute perfection’ attributed to God is to ensure it has no link to its creation, i.e. theists do not want their God to be accused as being man-made, i.e. conditioned by humans plus being inferior in any way.

Qualities are only described by humans which is conditional, but God-by-itself is purely unconditional to anything else. God is totally unconditional - see dictionary meaning below, plus note that is what theists would expect their God to be.

I don’t think you have searched enough.

Note point 15 of this link;
dictionary.com/browse/absolute
the absolute - something that is free from any restriction or condition.

That is the same as totally unconditional.

If you go down the link, British Dictionary definitions for absolute you will find this
noun (sometimes not capital)

  1. (philosophy)
    the ultimate basis of reality
    that which is totally unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, perfect, or complete

Get it?

Relative certainty in this case is not related to ‘a priori knowledge’.
Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system.
1 + 1 = 2 is relative certain but only relative to the decimal system and not the binary or other counting system.

Nope I did not claim it to be axiomatic.
The point is my proof stand by itself based on reason.

I am stating in the case of ‘God exists’ theists and agnostics are using “crude reasoning” to jump to the conclusion ‘God exists’ because they were compelled by some psychological impulses to do so.

One good example of crude reasoning in contrast to higher-reasoning is Hume’s Problem of Cause and Effect. Common sense and crude reasoning conclude marble A knocked and caused marble B to move. Using a higher level of reasoning, Hume disagreed and assert the conclusion of cause and effect is due to psychology, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
Theists perceive creations and jump to the conclusion there must be an ultimate creator, i.e. God exists. This is crude reasoning driven by primal psychological impulses.

May be yours is 95% God does not exist and 5% God exists.
In this case there is still that 5% of ‘God exists’ as a positive claim.

Note the theists’ God exists is based on crude reasoning driven by psychology, i.e.
Creations perceived, cause and effect, therefore God exists.
Since the idea of God emerged there is no convincing proofs to support the idea God exists within an empirical rational reality.

On the other hand, I have used higher order thinking to show;

  1. God is an impossibility - based on reason [higher] only
  2. The idea of God can also emerge out of mental illness, brain damage, drugs, chemical, electronic wave stimulation, meditations, etc. - based on empirical evidence.
  3. The idea of God is based on an existential crisis, thus psychological.
  4. There are Eastern spirituality who recognized the fact of 3 and deal with it non-theistically.
  5. The possibility of dealing with the existential crisis neurally and replacing theistic religions

You will note my higher order thinking is more sound than the theists’ crude reasoning reinforced by faith.

That is interesting because Prismatic’s logic seems to be that if you find flaws in his syllogism, then it must be because you are a theist at least a little bit. If you were an atheist, then you would not see any flaws.

Pris,

You speak as though there are different rules of language that apply when discussing God. IMV, God is a thing amongst other things, so I see no need for the use of unique language when discussing it’s attributes. I’ll stick to what I stated re God’s perfection.

Fair point. Hmm … :-k No, I don’t. I don’t understand what “totally unconditioned” means. Perhaps you could provide an example of that term in use which isn’t related to God? Not something that you think, but an actual quote. Then I might be able to understand what it means, implies and how it applies to your definition of God.

I noticed that the term “perfect” is listed amongst those things which are absolute from your quotation. Did you find any definitions of “perfect” that did not describe an absolute?

You stated, having claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge:

Then you stated:

Which is contradictory.

Hence, whilst I may not be right, I will not accept this as a definition of “relative certainty”, but thank you for attempting to explain. Also, 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 5, are axiomatic in the way that you’ve used them to make your points, not “relatively certainties”.

One definition I found of relative was “1. having meaning or significance only in relation to something else; not absolute:” which seems to reflect what I stated. So I’ll stick with my description of “relative certainty” until proven otherwise.

But note, I do agree with this to a degree: “Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system.”

Wouldn’t that mean that your argument/syllogism is self-evidently correct? You’ve claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge. If that is the case then it is self-evident or IOW axiomatic. You said yourself that you are relying on an axiom (although you called it a relative certainty), 1+1 = 5 being self-evidently incorrect. What a priori knowledge is there that isn’t axiomatic? “all bachelors are unmarried” is clearly axiomatic. Do you think that your argument/syllogism has a similar degree of veracity to “all bachelors are unmarried”?

This is a matter of opinion.

Wrong again in this respect. If someone believes that God is a possibility, you cannot attribute them with making a positive claim until they actually make one. A belief is not a claim. Not knowing if God exists, is not a belief, a negative claim or a positive claim. Agnosticism is not knowing.

I’m not going to get into a discussion about “higher order thinking” or “higher refined reason” if that is how you assess yourself then fine.

phyllo,

I agree, and I would go a step further than that. Due to his claims about using “higher refined reason” and “higher order thinking” it would seem that if someone disagrees with him regardless of their world view, then not only are they incorrect, but their reasoning is also “crude”. Hence it seems to me, that he has set an impossibly high standard for himself. Such that being wrong, has necessarily become his enemy.

Yin is the north, dark side of the mountain while yang is the south, sunny side. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang#Meanings

The only way I can see a priori being a requirement for posteriori is if a priori engenders the subject (brain) through evolution which then enables the subject to view the object (empiricism, deduction). But the way Kant defines it makes no sense to me since he divides the object (empiricism, deduction) into 2 parts for no obvious reason other than to complicate matters.

So it would seem that Kant has ignored yin, then proceeded to divide yang into two parts and achieved notoriety for it, though not for his blunder.

I tried Kant once and it was so incredibly boring that I gave up on it. It reminds me of sitting in a tree waiting for a deer to walk by. It’s far easier to simply ask you :wink:

Well then define humans. When did the first human come about? Evolution is a smooth continuous transition and there was never a point where we could say here is a human which came from this non-human. It’s just like asking what was the day when you became old? It’s another slippery slope since we can trace our ancestry back to a protoplasm globule and in fact, if you, for instance, believe the big bang, then we could say that we are the big bang still coming on. That singularity is grandpa.

What if 1+1=10? (binary) What if 1+1=1? (1 lump of clay added to another lump is 1 lump of clay.) And if 1+1=2 is so easy to understand, then which animals understand it and which do not? Does a gazelle realize there are 2 lions chasing it rather than 1? If so, is that empiricism or deduction?

If you throw a box of toothpicks on the floor and Rainman instantly knows the quantity of toothpicks, is it by empiricism or deduction? When idiot savants multiply ridiculously large numbers together in their heads, is it by empiricism or deduction? The only reason I know 7x7=49 is that I memorized it because I had to write it down a bazillion times in 3rd grade. To my knowledge, I have never deduced 7x7.

For a long time, humanity had no concept of zero because you can’t have zero cows. If you have no cows, there is no need to write it down. livescience.com/27853-who-i … -zero.html So is 1-1=0 a priori or not? After all, there are currently zero pink elephants chasing me.

Yes, in order to have a debate about what forms life, we need to have a differentiation between life and nonlife because the debate absolutely depends on such differentiation. Isn’t that silly? Let’s divide the room just so we can argue about who gets which side. Have philosophers gotten so bored that they’re resorting to such?

Pris,

I agree that your syllogism is based upon your reasoning, but I don’t agree with the conclusion of your syllogism or the premises it proposes. I don’t know if God exists, so I wouldn’t claim that God’s existence is an impossibility, certainly not based upon the premise of “perfection”. From your perspective God doesn’t exist, so you are effectively claiming to have proven a negative.