Yeah pretty lame imaginations. Perhaps man got god wrong from the get go, never quite got his fingers around the prize so to speak. Perhaps you are just arguing against an imperfect description.
Yeah I guess that works for some but are you claiming its a universal thing? Why isn’t it working on you?
And likely just as many faerie tales end with… and everyone lived happily ever after.
I don’t think a god is responsible for that at all, that’s just good ole human self delusion.
But it might be rational for an atheist to accept the notion of a god that is imperfect.
Yeah that is a problem with theism, but I question your statement of fact that it is inherent within all humans. Incidentally you still haven’t proven god is an impossibility, while you likely have come close to proving no indoctrinated human has gotten god right yet. Humans make human mistakes.
My mission in the thread is not to prove ‘God does not exist’.
What I attempting to do is the question of ‘God’ as a term for consideration of existence and reality is moot and a non-starter.
Analogically, in terms ‘square-circle’ married-bachelors and other contradictory terms are moot and a non-starter in consideration whether they exists are real or not.
The above are very obvious contradictions but the word ‘God’ is the same shoes when we dig deeper into it philosophically as I had done.
This makes no sense at all. It is just a contradictory statement, i.e. p can be not-p.
Note your use of ‘be,’ there is no way God can be real.
God can be a reified-thought in the brain of theists represented by the respective neural activities, but it cannot be real like an apple-that-can-eaten and justified to exist empirically and philosophically.
My OP is not merely for debating.
My mission and vision is ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity’.
The word ‘God’ is reified by theists as ‘real’ to the extent that such a God [illusory] has sent His commands and exhort theists to war against and kill non-believers [e.g. Allah of Islam].
Islam and Christianity also has other elements that counter the advancements of humanity.
This are great hindrances to ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity.’
Therefore humanity must wean of the idealization of God as ‘real’ and then there will be ZERO killings and violence related to any God.
Humanity will find fool proof alternatives for ex-theists to deal with the unavoidable inherent existential crisis and contribute to ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity’.
As indicated above, that God must uncomprisingly and ultimately be perfect, absolute with omni-whatever, which make God an impossibility to exists as real.
Note is it not impossible for the word ‘God’ to be thought, but that word cannot be represented as anything real empirically and philosophically.
I have defined ‘real’ as grounded on the empirical and encompassed by the philosophical.
I understand your notion of “real” and it’s empirical grounds. I also acknowledge we don’t know the half of it. There are some fairly wild theories out there that allow for some wiggle room regarding notions of real. You think any human being is capable of reasoning what is absolutely real? How many times in our history has that been proven a contradiction?
I don’t agree that god must be anything we are capable of understanding, perfect, absolute or what ever. You seem stuck in the same paradigm humans have stuck god in. I don’t believe a god has to make sense to us. Because we insist on our current capacity to understand anything as absolute, is exactly why I think it could be a possibility. Empirically we have a good track record of succeeding in proving ourselves wrong regarding a theory. A law isn’t a law because we have proven it true, a law is a law because we haven’t been capable of proving it wrong. Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality. Those aren’t my words alone. The two don’t make sense in relation to each other. We require further understanding.
So I back up a bit.
Or so we think or don’t, given what we believe we know. Of course, I can’t believe what I think you are saying, that you ‘know’ what is absolutely real, then rationalize the quantum and relative theories. That would impress me.
Yes, you have stated that before, and it still strikes me as irony. Let me guess, you think a belief in a god is the problem… Maybe a god would not require our belief. We could be a planet of atheists and we would still not find peace. That isn’t a gods fault. It remains a very human fault. Atheists and theists alike. I’d guess you’re barking up the wrong tree.
While an impossibility assertion in science can never be absolutely proved, it could be refuted by the observation of a single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined. God is an impossibility is an assertion.
I think that perfection is something that human-beings attribute to things when we don’t perceive any flaws in something(s) or when something(s) excels in such a way that it seems, well, perfect. What we perceive as perfect may seem that way, but it cannot be known as a certainty that there is not something better or greater than what we currently perceive as being perfect, because absolute is only a measure of what we can currently comprehend, if that makes sense?
Comparative to human beings, the Abrahamic God is perfect because “he” purportedly possesses qualities that make it perfect, like having all the Omni’s. I don’t see a contradiction in believing that a being possessing all of the omni’s exists, but I think someone must have faith to do so.
The Abrahimic God is posited as being perfect, but if we take the Bible as an example, not everyone will interpret God’s character and actions as being perfect. Which I think would demonstrate that perfection can be something that is perceived on an individualistic basis, and is not necessarily universally accepted. So whilst God may seem perfect some ways to some people, he is not perceived as perfect by others or all - an example of this could be how Christians and Muslims would perceive each others “God”.
I think that from the perspective of an atheist or agnostic, because of what we currently know about reality, that something sentient can be perfect is difficult to accept as a possibility, and the fact that such an entity is directly related to “spirituality”, a purported aspect of life that cannot be proven to exist, makes it unlikely that anyone without faith will believe that such a being can exist. But without substantive proof on either side of the God argument, I think that our perceptions and ideas of what is absolutely likely, unlikely, possible and impossible, should be considered from the perspective of what they actually are.
I did not claim humans are capable of what is absolutely real.
According the Popper, the most reliable knowledge of what is deemed to be real, i.e. Scientific knowledge is at best polished conjectures. This is why we need philosophy-proper to give it a finer polish but never achieving absolute certainty.
Whatever the wildest theory of what is real, it cannot be absolutely real.
BUT theists claim their God is absolutely real.
That the problem we need to address, not the scientific and my concept of what is real.
I am arguing against the theists’ idea of what is real but you seem to disagree to side with the theists’ theories.
I am not arguing against “your” views that God need not be perfect nor absolute.
As you can see, I am arguing against the theists’ claim, God exists as real. As stated above 70-75% of all theists [Abrahamic] make this claim. 85-90% of all people are theists including the pantheists.
You’ll need to argue the holy texts of the 70-75% of theists [the Abrahamic believers] do not claim God is perfect, absolute and omni-whatever. This claim is extended to another 10% of theists who make similar claims of perfection albeit in different form.
Yes, the empirical basis cannot never be perfect, in fact it is merely at best it is polished conjectures, thus the need for Philosophy-proper to polish it further.
But that the empirical and philosophical cannot be absolute and perfect do not warrant theists to claim their God is real and perfect.
For theists to ensure their claims of God is credible, they have to produce justified true beliefs [JTB] but instead they are relying on faith [beliefs without proof not justified reasons].
As stated, I do not claim to ‘know’ what is absolutely real.
Whatever is real is always relative to a Framework, e.g. the Scientific Framework and Method, which is most objective but yet relative and uncertain.
As stated, we need the higher tools of Philosophy, i.e. logic, rationality, wisdom, critical thinking, etc. to exhaust as much uncertainties as possible.
Obviously there has to be a Systematic Framework and Model that is feasible to yield progress towards ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity’ which may materialize a reasonable level of peace within say 75, 100 or 150 years if we embark on a program now.
I have argued, genetically all human beings are “programmed” with a ‘seed’ of morality. This seed has already sprouted and taken hold albeit very growing slowly.
There are evidences of a positive incremental trend in the moral compass of the average human being since 200,000 years ago, 10,000, 500, 100 up the present. Albeit not up to reasonable expectations, note the improvements in chattel slavery, racism, concern for climate change, etc. by the average human.
God is an impossibility to exists as real.
So there is no real God to be faulted in the first place.
I have provided the alternative explanation.
Why theists believe in God is due to internal psychology driven by the subconscious fear of death.
Note as Hume explained, there is no absolute knowledge of causality, but rather what is causality is fundamentally grounded on psychological from experiences of customs, habits and constant conjunctions.
The reference is only to theists who claim their God is perfect, not to ‘we’ and ‘all’ other non-theists.
The Abrahamic God, especially Christianity and Islam which is 70-75% of all theists is claimed to be perfect, absolute, greatest of all in the respective holy texts.
This quality of perfection and omni-whatever is imperative to ensure it is beyond any doubt, such that the believer can be assured of an eternal life in heaven as promised by their perfect and all-powerful God.
Note Islam as per Quran claims the Christian God as in the current Bible is a false God [bullshit god], i.e. Trinity = polytheism, God cannot have a biological son as Jesus, etc.
Surely Christians will not accept the above and will not provide any room for the Allah - the Islamic God - to be any greater that their God, who could then destroy their Christian God, which is a threat to their assurance of eternal life by their Christian God.
Muslims will hold the same views as above and provide no room for the Christians and other Gods to be greater than Allah. Again this is highly and emphasized in the Quran.
The above claims by both religions will logically and rationally culminate to a claim of a Perfect and Absolute God for their respective religion. In this grounding of perfection, no God from Christianity or Islam will yield to the other.
The above is the logical argument, why God must ultimately have to be perfect, absolute with omni-whatever.
Yes, faith.
This implies as supported with justified argument, it is impossible for God to exists as real, other than merely as a thought and believed based on faith.
Nope.
It is God’s law and command that God is perfect in both Christianity and Islam.
This is what matters in our discussion and the argument.
The fallible minion believer’s subjective opinion don’t count as far as the laws of the religion is concerned.
As I had stated I am not proving God do not exists as real.
This approach is wrong because this give the possibility God may or may not be real.
My approach is to squash any possibility of whether God exists or not by arguing the word ‘God’ is merely a word and a thought [an idea not concept] that cannot be represented by anything real.
Thus the question of whether ‘God exists or not’ is moot, a non-starter.
In my statement, God can be included in “things” and theists can be included in “we”.
I understand that God is perceived as perfect by Christians and Islamists.
I’m not entirely sure about this, but I don’t think that all theists believe that perfection is a necessity for granting eternal life. They may believe that God is perfect and granting eternal life is something that he is capable of, but I wouldn’t argue as a matter of belief, that perfection is a necessity for granting eternal life. It may be something that an imperfect God (whatever that means) is capable of.
I think it is reasonable to claim that theists believe that God is perfect, because their holy texts claim that he is, and that conclusions theists reach, are primarily influenced by their scriptures and how their experiences relate to scriptures, that is their “home base”. If their scriptures told them that God is an imperfect being, that is capable of granting eternal life, they would believe that. But God is described in them as being perfect, so they believe he is perfect.
That’s the point. Perfection is perceived.
Isn’t it rather that each religion believes that the other’s God is not real?
Where is the contradiction in believing that a being possessing all the Omni’s exists by reason of faith? What is that belief contradicting?
Which doesn’t mean that every Christian or Muslim believes that God is perfect. Put the text books down for a second and consider the reality of human nature. Believers and preachers will extol God’s perfection, but we cannot know if every one of them, on an individual basis, actually believes that. Even the most devout believers can have doubts about God in any sense. There are contradictions in the Bible, do you think that believers don’t consider them, and that they have no effect upon their beliefs? Your perceptions of how theists relate to their religions seems idealised, have you never heard of people having a crisis of faith?
Mild mannered censorship? There are other people reading this topic except you. I don’t think I’ve even strayed from the topic.
I think they do, you just can’t comprehend any reasons why.
So, it seems as if you are stating, you are not absolutely certain, that god is an impossibility? Admitting a finer polish is a good, for the sake of argument, never achieving absolute certainty is evident regardless.
“According the Popper” I remember a Karl Popper, the manner of your reference is usual. Could you be more clear. For a theory to be valid it must be falsifiable, testable. That, I am told is why string theory was such a short thread, it was thought of as untenable. I have a certain degree of that thinking going on myself. It is tied up within this notion of subjective experience. A mere experience of a contradiction is not enough of to substantiate a theory as contradicted. If science theorized all swans are white and someone went about looking for black swans, an experience of one would not be sufficient to anyone else. I wonder why the person wasn’t out looking for any other colored swan, why as the story goes it was a black swan that would disprove the theory all swans are white?
Was the black swan merely a hallucination, or worse an imagination running wild? In the case of the black swan, the conclusion is a contradiction of the hypothetical theory. But something had to take place beyond the single experience of it. It had to rise above a singular experience to become a valid contradiction. Not seeing the black swan yourself doesn’t work. Not seeing any other colored swan doesn’t work.
I see, it is God with whom you argue. You talk about God as if it is a who? An identity? Some individual with a set a qualities. I gotta agree, that does not make sense. I find your capitalization of the word god interesting as if it’s a proper name or something?
Wow, genetically “programmed” with a “seed” of morality. Why not put morality in quotes as well? Could you refresh me with a summary of the argument? Where did this morality come from? And what was the cause of the “programming”?
Wisdom, is the all perfect god he dismisses and we are agents that are apart of the string of change/experience that seek out such /god/. The terminology and context had been misinterpreted. People didn’t understand it then but they do now, it’s psychology. Projection of the interior of the human mind and being onto language in reality, “gods”.
To understand something, first you must attach it to form, aka, create language, art, expression, etc.
Everything understood has imagery, a context
/field of details.
Information + Form/imagery = language.
The only way they used to know how to understand their mind is through the attribution of the ideas that are “gods”.
It is too vague to claim believers “perceive” God is perfect.
Again you are trying to be rhetorical and deceptive with the term ‘perceive’ which include an element of doubt.
That can be said from a third party point of view, but not from the believers’ personal belief and conviction.
The point is the Abrahamic believers in the mind believe with 100% conviction their God is real, perfect and absolute in accordance to what God presented in their respective holy book.
The believers has to believe their God is perfect, absolute with omni-whatever to be able to grant them eternal life in heaven.
In addition, their God has to be perfect without any room for any other God to dominate theirs, thus losing the power to grant them eternal life.
Even if any believer were to doubt, they would apply Pascal Wager’s and believe their God is really and truly perfect, absolute with whatever-omni.
Out of the 4 billion Christians and Muslims around the world, it is likely 10% may have serious doubts but chose to remain a Christian. This is not a critical quantum to the issue discussed.
The 90% will have a strong personal conviction, their God is really and truly perfect and absolute as presented by their God in their holy texts. They can read such a point from their holy book or are informed by the pastors and imans.
If by faith, it is merely opinions that are not justified, thus could be illusory.
If by reason, this is justified with reason, logic, rationality and evidence.
If by personal faith, one can claim anything is real without having to prove it.
A mother will have faith, his son is not the murderer. This happened in many cases where the courts had already proven the son is a murderer.
Yes, or each religion believers the other’s God is inferior to their God, or the other God is a false-God.
Thus for each religion to avoid their God being accused as inferior, each will have to make the following assertion without budging in the following stand-off, i.e.
Christians claim - The Christian God is perfect and absolute.
Muslims claim - Allah is perfect and absolute.
So the final claim for each religion has to be;
God is perfect and absolute.
It is not only for Christians and Muslims but all other theists will claim their God is perfect and absolute.
The holy texts of theistic religions will proclaim their God to be perfect and absolute, thus it is so easy for believers to make similar claims.
It would be very stupid and irrational for any believer [if they are informed their God is perfect] to insist their God is inferior to another’s. [exception is only by the ignorant].
The default of all theistic religions is;
God is perfect and absolute.
As with all reputable philosophers, I don’t believe in absolute certainty.
However we can have relative certainty i.e. relative to a defined Framework of Knowledge.
For example within the Mathematical Framework, it is 100% certain 1 + 1 = 2. But if taken outside the mathematical framework, 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop (bigger] of water.
My argument ‘God is an Impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically’ is construed within the empirical and transcendental logic Framework with 100% certainty but not absolutely certain in an ultimate sense.
I don’t think the conditions of falsifiability and testability apply to all scientific theories and truth.
Within Science there are many other sub-frameworks, i.e. Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM, etc.
For example the Big-Bang theory, the evolutionary theory are not testable, repeatable nor falsifiable.
Some scientific theories are merely theoretical awaiting testing.
But whatever are the scientific theories, they are at best polished conjectures, i.e. all of them started as a conjecture [hypothesis] and then polished till there is intersubjective consensus with the requirements of the Scientific Methods and peer reviews.
Science will never theorized ‘all swans are white’ without qualifications.
At best science will assert, all swans so far observed are white.
I am presenting ‘God’ from the theists’ perspective.
It is only a ‘who’ to the theists, not me.
It does not matter whether is ‘God’ or ‘god’ as long as I present how the theists define their God or god.
Note “programmed” is in " " thus metaphorically.
The generic model of a human being is encoded within the human genome via evolution.
The ‘seed’ or “coded program” of morality [the potential] is embedded in the DNA-RNA.
One of the feature of the moral potential is the manifestation of mirror neurons which is relatively more in the brain of humans than the higher primates, elephants, and others.
In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Empathy is a significant element as a basis for morality.
Wisdom is merely practical knowledge that optimize within constraints.
You cannot assign ‘wisdom’ to a god without first proving god exists as real.
But such a formulation can relate to real things and also illusions.
An image of an apple on the table and in mind can be verified empirically as real.
But the mind can also produce illusions that are not real.
Example, a mirage is an illusion in the mind which has imagery, context/field of detail, which can be expressed in information and language.
But a mirage is not real, it is only an illusion in the mind.
It the same with the idea of God, it is thought only in the mind and is a transcendental illusion which cannot be represented by anything that can be justified as real.
Vague? The term “perceive” has specific meanings which I thought were reasonable to apply in relation to how a theist, well, perceives God. I would argue that how theists perceive God is one of the reasons they believe in him.
Again? This is a strawman. I gave no reference to my use of the term “perceive” including an element of doubt. Why do you think that my use of the term “perceive”, in the context that I used it, is being “rhetorical and deceptive”? I’d actually like to know.
What? Theists can’t claim that they perceive that God is perfect? Why not?
From my perspective, the above can be reduced to opinion - not fact. So why not state that it is your opinion? Ironically, it seems as though you are the one being rhetorical and deceptive here, because not only does the above seem like a fine example of rhetoric to me, you are also trying to pass it off as fact.
This is not relevant to what I stated.
I stated;
I’ve asked you this twice, and you still haven’t provided a straight answer.
I repeat;
“I think it is reasonable to claim that theists believe that God is perfect, because their holy texts claim that he is, and that conclusions theists reach, are primarily influenced by their scriptures and how their experiences relate to scriptures, that is their “home base”. If their scriptures told them that God is an imperfect being, that is capable of granting eternal life, they would believe that. But God is described in them as being perfect, so they believe he is perfect.”
You can’t know that. And even they did, we have no way of knowing if they genuinely believed that.
I stated something like this, you didn’t acknowledge it. Yet you’re repeating it to me as if I never said it.
Generally the term ‘perceive’ [related to perception] cannot be absolutely be without an element of doubt.
I would rather state, believer have faith their God is perfect.
Note my preference of ‘faith’ over ‘perceive’.
Nope, not opinion but a justified belief.
I have argued, in doctrinal principle, a Christian is one who had [by implication] entered into a personal covenant with God/Jesus to comply with the contractual terms as in the Gospel. God is projected as perfect in the Gospel and relevant supporting verses from the Bible.
As such in principle, a Christian has to believe God is perfect and absolute as a contractual duty.
I agree some Christians may have doubts, but that is beside the point.
Point is once a person had entered into and signed a contract, he has no choice but be contractually bound to the terms of the contract, regardless of whatever feelings he has about the terms he has signed.
The same situation applies to the Muslim where the contract/covenant with Allah to comply with the contractual terms in the Quran is more explicit. It is explicitly stated in the Quran, Allah is the God than which no other gods can be greater, i.e. absolute and perfect.
The point is a contracted Christian or Muslim cannot override God’s authority in the holy texts.
Note this scenario;
Islam and Quran: Allah is perfect and absolute
Muslim: Allah is not perfect nor absolute
Point 2 cannot be compatible with 1.
A person may have a personal opinion, but as a Muslim contractually, he [mere slave] cannot contradict Allah’s words.
If a Christian or Muslim were to claim and insist their god is less than perfect, then they are no more a Christian or Muslim.
If they are still theists on their own, I would counter their God differently with arguments that are different from the OP.
The fact is the majority of theistic religions claim their God is perfect and absolute. My argument is based on this fact.
Show me which mainstream theistic religion claim their God is imperfect?
EVEN IF, there exist a religion which claim their God is imperfect, the majority of their believers - driven by the one-up instinct - naturally would prefer their God to be perfect and absolute so that there is no room for the god of others to dominate and make their God as inferior.
I had stated, those who accepted an imperfect God are likely to be the ignorant ones due to traditions, etc. Humans are ‘programmed’ with a one-up instinct in not settling for less than the other unless forced to by various constraints.
The Abrahamic religions make up 80% of all theists, the other majority are the Hindus whose ultimate God Brahman is claimed to be absolute.
It is their holy texts from God that said IT is perfect and absolute.
I have stated, the personal opinions of the believers is not critical to this argument.
Yes, I noticed that but you insist the believers [SOME, etc.] do not believe that.
I said again, the personal opinions of the believers is not critical to this argument.
Your only counter to my argument is to prove the holy texts of the mainstream religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Bahai, do not claim their God is perfect and absolute. The bolded religions represent 90% of all theists.
I think that within the frameworks you have mentioned, truth or 100% certainty concerning something is called a “fact”. So in claiming that your argument is 100% certain, you are claiming that it is a fact. As far as I’m aware, “fact” is the absolute in terms of what can be defined as knowledge. Therefore, your claim is an absolute one. Also, “impossible” is in the ultimate sense.
Yeah, the genome. Can see it in a quite a few species. Fortunate accident. Intuition, inspiration. Life is sort of pro life. I can appreciate it.
No, it looks more like a relative fact. I sort of have a fondness for my size. General relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics? Which is the scale on which I live. That’s relative. Where the foot falls along the path. That’s a relative fact. I am quite fond of the notion of giving Earth a chance. The sun, the moon, the planet. If pigs could fly any god would be tickled sick if it were worth it’s weight in salt.
By “perceive” I meant: “interpret or regard (someone or something) in a particular way.” I didn’t want to use the term “have faith”.
And that doesn’t explain this claim: “Again you are trying to be rhetorical and deceptive with the term ‘perceive’ which include an element of doubt.”
You need to justify this. As all reputable philosophers would do
Your preference doesn’t invalidate the use of the term in reference to theists.
Well, the justification is noticeably absent.
I assume that you’re talking about the New Covenant, whereby a person has to believe in order to gain the reward of eternal life. That doesn’t mean that everyone who claims to be a Christian, actually believes.
What if they do everything else associated with the religion, believe that their respective religions are correct, but don’t believe that the God they believe in is perfect? Does John 3:16 state that you have to believe God is perfect?
Okay.
Did I claim that there was such a religion?
“One-up” instinct? Some humans may have such a desire, but I wouldn’t go as far as to call it an “instinct”. Maybe you feel that way so deeply that it appears as an instinct to you?
From my perspective, this is a distinctly personal view.
I disagree. If all believers don’t believe that God is perfect, then your argument has to shift to the holy texts.
Which is possible.
So you perceive. Why would I acknowledge what the holy texts say about God, then claim that they don’t say this?
