On impossibility of God

I don’t think that we could call a quantum particle as simple.

If every element in the universe came from the singularity of the big bang, why can’t Love & Justice come from the simplicity that is God? Alternatively, apart from the fact that the simplicity of God is part of the traditional orthodox definition, why must God be simple?
On your question, “what is the truth?”, from the probability that we don’t know the answer with certitude, it doesn’t follow that there isn’t one or that such cannot be experienced.

Because Love and Justice are different yet each being God.

Here there is an argument in favor of that: saintaquinas.com/article5.html

Yes, we cannot know.

Then nothing is simple. The word has no meaning.

Or perhaps some complicted things do not move towards more complexity or simplicity. CAn you demonstrate that this must be the case.

Sure, knowing more. The Abrahamic religions have God as the perfect unevolving something. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps God evolves.

You mean because humans use inexact terms in language there could not possibly be a God where it would be useful to use those terms?

Are you saying, for example, you would never refer to another person as both just and loving because they cannot be both all the time? Are you saying something does not exist because our words are not perfect?

So if people start saying contradictory things about you will that make you no longer having existed?

It seems to me all you are demonstrating is some the problems of describing things. Still, even the inexact descriptions of things can be useful, and even convey core truths.

That’s true for a lot of things we know exist.

If you are loving you want to treat those you love justly.

Because by eternity we mean that God has existed in infinite past. Creation apparently is not eternal, it has a age. Therefore God has to wait eternity to create.
[/quote]
We don’t know if creation is eternal or not. It could be eternal forward in time. What if God is not bound by time? What if we are trying to describe things above our pay grade. Like a dog licking the reviever of a phone upon hearing his owners voice through it. He’s right, it is his owner speaking. But he is not completely right.

It seems to me many of the issues you raise have the same problems when describing things we know are real. Like the personality of someone we love. Perception. The external world. Time. We try to explain these things and we get into imperfections and problems. Language and perception are problematic. I will never adequately be able to put my wife into words. Yet, she exists. And in many ways I do know her and my descriptions are helpful. Perhaps her mother knows her also, b ut her descriptions are not useful. They confuse others when those people meet my wife or do not help them understand her reactions and motives. Her mother has poorer descritpions, but mine are not perfect, they are just useful and in some core way correct. Even if one went through them carefully one would find contradictions and confusions.

It seems to me your critique works well as a general indictment of language, but it is a poor approach to disproving God or even discproving that some people have useful ways of describing, thinking about and relating to God.

And also there is a heavy use of the Abrahamic God.

No, a thing which has only a property/definition can exist.

True. That is the case too.

This is all exhaustive options.

Do you know the name of God who is evolving?

Yes.

No. They cannot be both in the same time.

No.

What is your definition of God?

No, nothing is wrong with the logic and language. It is about a contradiction.
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.

There is problem if there are at least two definitions which are contrary. Sorry for not being accurate.

Yes. But Love is not Justice.

Creation cannot be eternal. There is an argument against that.

A timeless God cannot create. There is an argument against that too.

Perhaps, the same way that an electron is a particle and a wave.

Right, it includes the statement: “The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective.” The same could be true of love and justice.

Then we agree that we cannot know. And, since we cannot know, it follows that you do not know if God is an impossibility or not.

Electron is not a simple thing.

I have heard of that but that is not an argument.

We cannot know through experience that what we experience is God or not. We can however deduce it.

That doesn’t hold. Lizards cannot describe how a car works and has not idea that there are radio waves. But there still are these things.

I see it all the time. In fact I cannot see how a consistently unjust person could be loving, ever. I find myself almost Platonic in this one. I could not love my two sons and also deal with their dispute justly all at the same time. You even go so far as to mean here that it cannot happen in any instance.

The soundness, or not, of you positions has nothing to do with whatever I believe. They have to stand on their own.

We are not lizard. We are cognitively open to logic.

I am arguing that love and justice are not the same. The fact that you observe that you are just and lovely does not implement that love and justice are the same. You are just a just and lovely person.

An electron is an elementary particle or fundamental particle. That means it is a subatomic particle with no sub structure, thus not composed of other particles. In physics you can’t get simpler than that. Thus, it is analogous to God’s putative ultimate simplicity. And yet it is both a wave and a particle, analogous to God being both justice and love.

Felix Dakat wrote

Above you state “Here there is an argument”. Now you state “that is not an argument.” You contradict yourself.

How do you deduce certainty from an uncertain experience?

Well, t hank you. But you actually made the extreme statement that they could not exist at the same time in something and they can. They could also be words describing the same essence from a couple of angles. And last, again, just because some people describe God as just and loving does not entail that God does not exist if these two are unreconcilable. It only entails that if the only possible God is those two things and further that we deal with language in mathematical terms.

Language is not mathematical. Word elicit experiences. And they do this slopplily. To varying degrees. I could describe my father as loving and just, and perhaps you would say that in response to event X he managed to only be just but not loving. This does not entail that he does not exist, nor does it entail that I was wrong to use these words to decribe him. I used words that effectively, though not perfectly described him. Giving people who do not know him or know him as well as I do some useful information.

There is no reason to take theists descriptions as mathematical propositions or step in an argument in symbolic logic. And there is no reason to take people’s fallible descriptions as causal in the existence or non-existence of something.

Old drawings of African animals by European travelers and explorers in Africa were often distorted, not remotely as accurate as current day (also flawed but less flawed drawings) of these animals. And yet a picture and description of the lion or the elephant, indicating its general shape and some of its behavior and the texture of its skin and fur did in fact convey information, and would have helped Europeans later at zoos or in Africa pick out the lion or elephant and also to understand to some degree how they differed from animals the Europeans were used to.

It would have been RIDICULOUS TO ARGUE THAT THE ELEPHANT AND THE LION DID NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE DRAWINGS WERE OFF STRUCTURALLY, THAT THE WAY THE LEGS WERE DRAWN WOULD MAKE IT HARD FOR THE ELEPHANT TO WALK, OR WHATEVER.

WE DO OUR BEST, THAT WE ARE FALLIBLE AND USE FALLIBLE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN NOTHING EXISTS.

The standard model wherein electron is an elementary particle is not anomaly free. Moreover, electron is not particle and wave in the same time but behaves as particle and wave at the same time.

I meant the bold part is not an argument.

I simply say that I don’t know. Uncertainty implements uncertainty when it comes to experience.

The Love that explain God as a being is different from love that we experience. The same applies to Justice. The Love/Justice are objective whereas love/justice are subjective. When we say God is Love we mean that Love is something which God is and vise versa God is something who is Love. I know that doesn’t explain much because it doesn’t explain what Love is. Regardless here is my argument that I post it again for sake of clarity:
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.
Where A is God, B is Love and C is Justice.

That’s a clear summation of your argument. It just doesn’t address the points I made. It could be an argument against someone with a particular (perhaps implicit) philosophy of language, who says that God is B and C. That these are exact categories, meant mathematically, such that if it turns out that these qualities do not match perfectly, like two abstract circles, then you may have undermined that person’s description of God. That is very different from demonstrating there is no God. It is also presuming, for example, a not late-Wittgensteinian idea of language on the other person’s part. At some point in theological history things got rather mathematical in regard to God, leading to all sorts of ridiculous discussion of God making stones so heavy he can’t life them. IOW paradoxes based on treating theological descriptions as something like axioms in geometry or steps in symbolic logic arguments. But they are not, in many and most cases. Of course some theists are partly to blame for this situation and the atheists and agnostics who form their mirror image join in the silliness and arguments run on like God is a math problem. I brought up lizards and someone I love, to try to bring this back to the actual human situations where words are used. And they generally are not meant mathematically. I can describe someone as an angry person and that person is seen to be nice on occasion and I am not shocked. Lizards are unwares of things, but they exist. I can describe things using the floppy tool language is and convey something useful, but not perfectly, mathematically correct. It can reflect my experiences AND be predictive, yet not be perfect.

If you are meeting a theologian who comes at you with mathematical-like proofs of God and is using language in ways intended to be taken like terms in partical physics - it was a boson with this spin and therefore has this mass, etc. - then in that context you can certainly point out the problems. But 1) this is not a proof God does not exist, it would be a proof, at best, that there is something wrong with that particular person’s way of describing God and 2) it still presumes that you know the correct metaphysics. Your earlier proofs included your ideas about what simple and time for example necessarily entail. A little humility and a brief mull over the history of science or the philosophy of language, just in the 20th century say, would make one cautious about thinking one has proved things using deduction and abstract words. That perhaps we have learned that what seems obviously logically excludable has repeatedly turned out not to be. That perhaps we have learned to be cautious when it comes to naive realism - which, it seems to me is the philosophy of language you are following.

And granted, many of your opponent here, in aphilosophy forum, that is Abrahamic theists, may also be naive about realism, about the easy perfection of deduction, of the mathematical nature of language and categories, etc.

But you have proved anything about what exists. Perhaps you have made a nice thorn in the side of certain specific theists if they share your views of language and want to hang onto specific types of arguments themselves.

God is an impossibility yes. But being itself is an impossibility yet here we are. Modernity acted as a wrecking ball on the traditional concept of God. Humanity needs to reimagine God.

I am using logic which I think is common. Actually I found another better argument: A is B require that A should be different from B which this is contrary.

How do you know that being itself is an impossibility?

I don’t. But, Lawrence Krauss notwithstanding, I haven’t been able to figure out how you can get something from nothing.