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?
Nope not the new covenant.
The New Covenant is something like a general treaty offer to all people.
I am talking about a personal contract a Christian has to enter into with God/Jesus.
Somewhere or somehow, the person must be in his ‘heart’ has intention to accept Jesus/God as his savior via John 3:16.
John 3:16 states one has to believe in Jesus - as son a God - and his message which in alignment with God’s will.
‘Believe’ in this case would imply contractually bound in believing what Jesus stated and represented in the Gospel and relevant verses from the Bible.
The Gospel and relevant verses from the Bible state God is Perfect and Absolute.
Therefore the Christian is contractually bound to accept God is Perfect and Absolute.
To insist Jesus/God is not perfect and absolute would be a serious non-compliance of the contractual terms which would nullify the contract.
Just to reinforce my point there is none.
This is very evident within anthropology.
It is very evident is school-yards with young kids.
This inherent instinct is not explicit with adults but very noticeable in the majority.
You are not observant and well read on this point and subject.
The holy texts is fundamental.
There is no way you can ignore them for the 90% of theists.
Your point in this case is toothless.
Note my Premise 2 is dependent of God has to be perfect.
Because the holy texts said so, God is perfect, so my argument stands.
I think that another way to define this is a desire or drive to win. If you want to believe that is an instinct then fine. Although, isn’t “one-up” or “winning” a concept?
Can you not see the implicit bias in such a statement? As the reason, you’re saying that, is because I don’t agree with you.
Also, you still haven’t answered this;
With regards to this series of dialogue;
I don’t think I was right… There could be theists who don’t believe that God is perfect, but the theists who do believe that God is perfect are relevant to your argument, as well as the holy texts. That seems more logical.
How do you know? Absolute perfection is impossible to grasp from my finite perspective. So like “justice” or “unconditional love” it’s a symbol for which I have analogies but I recognize that none of the analogies are exact.
In reality Everything is illusion except pain, wisdom and few other things.
What is or isn’t real isn’t for us to decide, for one period in time, we too were not “real”. All is past or future if something isn’t in the present it doesn’t mean it isn’t real, it means it isn’t observable to our being immediate, it’s a string. All that we may comprehend, I feel is real. For the dreamer can still die in a dream.
The Plane wasn’t real either at one time, then we invent it through wisdom, aka understanding of knowledge, this is the god in which is sought, which science is a tool of such god as well.
Wisdom isn’t assigned to a God, wisdom comes from it. It’s the path of good, the knowledge of both “good and evil” wisdom is real, wisdom is it. It isn’t assigned to it… it is it. Wisdom is the understanding of knowledge and the application of such justly.
I have not stated there is a contradiction in the above.
When one relies on faith [belief without proofs nor justified reasons], one claim for whatever based on one’s thoughts because there is no need for proofs nor justified reasons.
Thus a person can rely on faith to believe ‘a being possessing all the Omni’s exists.’
A person can also believe a ‘square-circle’ exists based on faith.
In the case of reliance on faith, one can claim whatever proposition without limitations.
I thought this point is so obvious that I did not catch the point in your above statement.
This is not about knowledge from experience.
My point is inferred from logical deduction.
Sure, analogies can be different.
If one claim there is “perfect justice” of “perfect unconditional love” these are impossible to exist as real.
When a person declares “unconditional love” for something, that is not totally unconditional or absolute. Such "unconditional love’ is conditioned to the person’s feelings which is fundamentally subjective, thus not absolutely unconditional.
Note your point;
Wisdom isn’t assigned to a God, wisdom comes from it [God].
In the above you merely assume God exists but provide no proof for it’s existence.
It is only in one sense, everything is an illusion.
Note the concept of Maya in Hinduism.
In this case, God as the representation of everything is also an illusion, thus an impossibility to be real.
In other sense, everything is real.
But to be real, it need to be justified to be true.
What is real is fundamentally empirical which is verifiable via Science, plus what is real need to be reinforced with philosophical critical thinking.
God cannot be real, thus impossible to be real because God cannot be verified and justified by Science nor philosophical thinking.
Strings are not real per-se. Strings are merely a scientific speculation at present.
Even if strings are proven to be real, they have nothing to do with God which is not real.
If there is no contradiction, why do you compare belief in such a being to believing in a square circle, which is a contradiction? I think that things that are impossible are usually contradictory.
I think that people will have justifications for their faith, such as scriptures, other texts or their experiences and observations. You may not agree that they are justifications, but they are for the people who have faith. They may not be right, but for them and others who share their beliefs, their beliefs are justified. That’s one of the reasons why religions work as they do.
I’m not sure you mean by “rely on faith”?
Why would anyone believe that a square circle exists by faith? Religion/God and a square circle are different conceptually. Which may be why some people believe in God, but no one believes in square circles.
I think that people with faith, like theists, believe in specific things like God, and because it is claimed that God is perfect and can do anything, they believe that, based upon a framework (the religion). But outside of what their religion purports, I am quite sure they recognise that there are limitations, and do not propose that things like square circles exist.
