Define beginning and ending, there is no ending or beginning, it always has been and always will be. If there is energy, there is wisdom to be sought, just no observer to seek it, we are the god collectively becoming aware of itself through our reintegration with wisdom by consciousness. The expansion happens by energy taking form of diverse things, so there must be other variables coexisting with energy as well, inside of space. God is not a single entity in the sky… what is impossible is or possible is dependent on our pursuit or lack of in what we deem such. Our own minds convince us of shortcuts, shortcuts lack quality. I made a thread on this topic before, on why something such as “impossibility” seems to be as such.
I don’t go off of what others describe god as that is rhetorical, that’s where you make your mistake. You’re arguing against a way outdated concept of what god is.
Then you aren’t doing philosophy here if you can’t entertain the diverse ideas of what god is when the idea I am speaking of is based off of logic and reason and not out dated concepts that no longer serve us but are ignorant, but then only stick with a one definition, it is insanity to repeat the same thing and expect different results.
You tell me god doesn’t exist, I make the argument that your view of god is skewed and explain why then your response is telling me I’m off topic because the objectively observable god I explain and depict is not aligning with your illusion of one, which that concept of god is far out dated and not up to date with today’s information.
Facts exist always, independent of the observer, aka, humans/consciousness. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear or see it, it still falls and it waits until one is conscious of it, change never ceases and does NOT rely on human perception. If it did then one in a coma should stop aging by that logic.
You should change the name of your thread to theistic idea of god being an entity in the sky, is an impossibility, not just “god is an impossibility” because I have given perfect explanation and examples here to depict that god is very real and apart of us and our search for it (wisdom) being the reintegration and collective forming of it.
I had stated very clearly, the thread is against the theists’ definition, not mine.
Here are the listing of the theistic definition of God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
I don’t have to offer my own definition of God since to me, God is an impossibility to be real.
I don’t have to change my title because I have already stated what type of God I am arguing against in the OP.
If your ‘god’ or whatever, do not fit into any of the above, then you are off topic.
Artimas; “the objectively observable god”
If your god is “the objectively observable god” that would be an empirical God, in that case, you’ll need to bring the evidence to verify that God empirically.
Btw, an empirical God even if proven is at best a polished conjecture.
I would suggest you start a new OP with the title “An Objectively Observable God Exists” and I don’t think you can go far with it.
Note the above is a very contentious point within the philosophy community.
This was raised hundreds of years ago and philosophers are still arguing on it.
This is the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical Anti-Realists.
An independent reality external to the observer is very obvious in the common sense, science, etc. but not so clear-cut with philosophy.
My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realists’ who take the view, reality is interdependent with the observer or rather the co-creator.
I would say, God as an human-liked entity [bearded man] in the sky is empirically possible.
To prove, just bring the empirical evidence which intuitively is not probable.
The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.
The empirical evidence isn’t a single object, it isn’t singular but more so a broad field of inter-relating subjects and functioning between man and the wisdom to gain within reality by the understanding of contextual scenarios.
So you’re saying men of the past who had less information and scientific data to go off of and did not have Jung or brilliant psychologists as such, have a superior concept of god? If it was superior it wouldn’t have been defeated or be so easily criticized. So basically, with that logic, we should go back to the past ideas since they’re all superior than what we have now, that doesn’t make logical sense Pris. That isn’t the ultimate god because it isn’t real, the ultimate god is what is real and functioning with and in reality as well as part of the human being psychologically and collectively.
Observe humanity as a collective, logically deduce if we were on the same page philosophically, everyone at the truths which show through consistency. Observe our journey toward wisdom and how it always has been since consciousness first dawned. They painted wisdom and the will seeking such as the god, they merely gave that idea form by externalizing it onto the idea of an entity. Makes it easier to observe but then people get lost in it and forget the context and original idea of what it truly is.
I understand there is a debate going on about realists vs anti realists.
The proof is in our existence, we are now and once weren’t before, yet the functioning of everything regardless of us, lead to us here now, through steps of consciousness… rooted from the unconscious into the subconscious then into consciousness.
Yes, the empirical evidence need not be a single object.
The empirical can be related to system, i.e. empirical systems.
Example, the river systems, the human systems, whatever-system that is empirical.
The empirical can also be something like energy which is a common denominator throughout the empirical world.
Even if scientists were to discover the so-called God-particle, it is basically empirical, thus a limited thing, i.e. limited to the Scientific Framework.
It is not “between man and the wisdom” but man using his wisdom.
There is nothing else to gain from reality other than what is empirical [philosophical].
Those who think more than what-is-empirical are driven by the psychological impulses.
I did not say men of the past have a superior concept of God.
The idea of God has evolved from 50,000 years to the modern concept of God [1600] to the present.
What is real is real which can be verified empirically and philosophically.
If you refer to an ‘ultimate god’ or anything as real, then, it must be able to be verified empirically and philosophically.
Instead of using ‘ultimate god’ which can easily be confused with the theists’ god, why don’t you use the term ‘ultimate-X.’
Then you describe what attributes and qualities your ‘ultimate-X’ comprised of, then set about to prove it is real.
Note ‘wisdom’ is merely ‘applied knowledge’ that optimize wisely.
Wisdom comes from man, nothing special about it.
We know humans are conscious beings but we do not know its detailed mechanics yet.
Human consciousness is relatively insignificant in comparison to the subconscious minds which humans do not have complete knowledge yet.
Note, you are merely playing with a lot of words in a vague manner and tries for form some sort of conclusion which is vague.
You need to be more precise here.
The best is to argue your point logically with a syllogism or a sequential list of premises that flows.
Our existence is the established fact.
Thus we need to start from our conscious existence and works towards the unknown.
Thus the sequence has to be;
-from the conscious [proven fact] to the unconscious [not certain] into the subconscious [more uncertain] then back into consciousness.
The point is we have to start from the conscious existence [which is limited] and thus whatever conclusion you infer therefrom is limited.
I presume you are trying to describe something, i.e. ultimate-X which is not the God of the theists.
In this case you have to present what is ‘ultimate-X’ then show proofs and argument that it exists as real.
Note, first define what is real.
The list the attributes and qualities of your “ultimate-X.”
I predict you will end up with your “ultimate-X” as something empirical which is limited.
If your “ultimate-X” is non-empirical, then it will definitely be the same as theists’ God albeit you approach it differently.
Note, this OP is applicable to what the theists defined as their God in here; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
This OP is critical for me, because from the definition of God which theists insist is real, theists are influenced by such a ‘real’ God to war against and kill non-believers. On this basis believers had killed over 270 million non-believers merely because they disbelieved their God.
Therefore if God is proven to be impossible to be real then, there is no real God, i.e. no grounds for theists to obey a God to kill non-believers.
And so after thousands of years of theists an idea is introduced by some philosophers about a mathematically perfect God, and suddenly no theist would accept anything else, even though they had before and some still do. So, the above paragraph contains its own refutation since before these guys theists conceived of God as not absolutely perfect - which can be seen in the myths and descriptions of God in a wide variety of cultures, including the OT where a clearly not perfect God - who gets cranky, who makes bets with the Devil, who sends angels down to destroy things he has made…and so on…iow having a very human-like temperment and not seeming to have expected certain outcomes since they piss him off.
Of course people will say God is perfect, because they think of God as so beyond us God might as well be perfect. But humans have a long history of fallible very humanlike deities.
Even Jesus on the cross doubted his father, who is supposed to be himself. Either Jesus was not perfect, since he doubted God, or God is not perfect since he was Jesus doubting.
The argument is also an argument ad populum. Most people believe God is absolutely perfect (mathematicall), therefore if there is a God, that God would have to be perfect like that, but such a God cannot exist.
That is such an illogical argument, not just for the ad populum idea, but also because it is an argument based on poison fruit.
The majority of theists believe God is X. Therefore if there was a God, God would have to be X. These people are wrong, there is no God. If they are wrong, then they are not a good source of information.
Further most people who believe in Darwinian evolution have all sorts of misconceptions about it. They don’t understand the epigenetic phenomena are not quite Lamarkian. They think it means survival of the fittest. And so on.
Just because the majority of believers in X believe something that does not mean we get to use their version of the belief to test the belief.
Prismatic needs there to be as the only possible deity a mathematically perfect deity.
So he says that is the only possible one and then uses that to refute
theism
in general
This is illogical on so many fronts it’s like dealing with a teenager who thinks the constitution entails he doesn’t have to listen to his parents about household rules.
And it has gone on for years, with P repeating the same ludicrous arguments where he will even tell theists what they are supposed to believe and then show how what they are supposed to believe is wrong - also using faulty deduction even with his poor foundation.
I will bet he has not had the slightest feedback IRL from someone with a real foundation in philosophy or comparative religion
For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.
For centuries, the majority believe ‘causality’ i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.
Point is the above and many beliefs handed down from millenniums and centuries ago were initiated on a wrong footing and are false.
While many beliefs like the above were corrected to their true nature, the belief of a God continued to be defended by theists up the present. At every turn of defense, theists come up with excuses and the final excuse has to be the ontological absolute perfect God.
Note it is not a mathematical perfect God, but rather an absolute and perfect God based on crude reasoning.
No one to date has presented an convincing proofs God exists as a real thing while the evil and violence acts commanded by the ‘real’ God continue to be committed by a significant quantum of theists as a religious duty.
What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.
The above is a critical necessity to counter the extremely dangerous threat posed by theists who are inspired by their ‘real’ God to war against and kill non-believers where the extreme could be an extermination of the human species.
Such theists are not deterred by M.A.D, for them it is a win-win even if they exterminate the human species, since they are guaranteed the highest honor with eternal life in paradise regardless of what happened on Earth.
Like Fanman’s, your above are merely noises and complains but without any argument of substance.
And that the vast majority of scientists still think that causality in general is independent of human thought.
Notice the appeal to authority with Hume, as if Hume shifted the way humanity thought as a whole, or even shift the educated classes. He didn’t. I love autodidacts, but autodidacts without a shred of humility, an inability to actually interact with criticism and a lack of even a basic philosophical grounding - in fallacies, for example - is really a sad thing.
I don’t understand how P can dismiss causality so easily. It is perhaps the one area where science can give us an ought. I tried considering the view that, independent of human observation and pattern recognition, things just happen. Not necessarily in series, or with some kind of innate universal conductor instructing one instrument to play after another, but a cacophony of things randomly occurring. But I could not shake the idea that an event, even on a celestial scale necessarily leads to another. Even without the application of logic, there are what we could call antecedents. If we look at the life cycle of a star, or something else that occurs without any decision making, one event (or a multitude of events) still leads to another - something causes something else to happen. Its not just psychology.
If you can counter Hume on causality from psychology*, you’ll likely win a Nobel Prize for Philosophy.
Hume did not use the term psychology, but Hume argued the fundamental grounding of ‘causality’ is human experience which implied is psychology, i.e. human behaviors.
Note even ‘reason’ which most think is something universal, but there are arguments that the fundamental grounding of ‘reason’ is from biology to psychology.
Problem is you do not look deep and wide enough.
To dig deep and wide require serious hard work, thinking and reflecting.
As they say, one has to be child-liked and keep asking “Why” endlessly without any finality.
Note in Physics, once physicists believed the fundamental of everything of reality is a particle, but was surprised the fundamental of reality could be either a particle or wave depending on context of observations.
I think Hume presents a good challenge to causality. My problem is not with P having that belief, but rather the way considers it a turning point in the history of ideas: that Hume changed the way people think. But he didn’t, not in any wider sense, not in the scientific community. QM did more to raise issues around causality, though even with that the bulk of the scientific community and the educated classes still work with cause and effect as givens.
It is as if what he reads is the way the world thinks. His experience and conclusions get projected over the planet. So he can say ‘this is theism, this is not theism’ and Kant showed that X is the case and that’s that. His authorities, those people who have convinced him or who confirmed for him his ideas are authorities he can simply cite to others. It’s very solipsistic, apart from the fallacies involved.
Of course my proposition was ignored. Prismatic 567 seems to be possessed by the myth of his autonomous thinking ego as the philosophical hero who vanquishes the monster god of Western monotheism. Thus, does his ego become his god. This puts him in good stead with modernism, positivism and nominalism. It’s a way to go. And he has plenty of company and the support of some brilliant thinkers, does he not?
Brilliant thinkers don’t spew rhetoric and merely defend against others out dated ideas. Rhetoric isn’t philosophy. The idea of god he argues against isn’t genuine, nor the arguments made against it. Can’t make an argument against something interpreted wrongly, then claim you’ve won when the view from the beginning is skewed and merely adopted.
.