Many of those who seriously claim they have had seen God are mental cases, had brain damage, took drug/hallucinogens.
There are tons of such evidence to support the above
Note here is one video where I often linked,
You need to understand the evolution of the idea of God since the idea emerged from the primitive god to the ontological absolutely perfect God together with the psychological elements of the existential crisis.
I am explaining the theists’ claim in greater detail along with the above point, i.e. the evolution of the idea of God.
As stated, my argument is presented as it is and I do not want to add the term ‘actual’ as a confusion.
Note my argument is actually argued, but that the thesis ‘God is an impossibility to be real’ need not be attributed with ‘actual’. The “idea of God exists as real”
is merely moot and a non-starter.
For example I do not have to state my argument that ‘1 + 1 = 5 is false’, is actual
It is difficult to leave points like this hanging…
In my view, this is completely irrelevant to what I stated. My point was that it was your argument, and not something that St Anselm or Descartes argued. If it is, you have yet to demonstrate that.
You have attempted to explain your view of theists claims. One of those views, as you have argued, is that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect. You have most recently stated in relation to this view “I have also explained why P2 has to be so.” Which emphasises and alludes to what you’ve previously stated regarding this point. This simply cannot be disputed.
Hmm. You have repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated that God is an impossibility. This would mean that you have in actuality done so; due to the use of the term “demonstrated”. You are now changing the parameters of you claim to “the thesis ‘God is an impossibility to be real’” without explaining why you’ve altered your claim?
Based upon your idea, that the idea of absolute perfection is impossible? When did the idea of absolute perfection become impossible?
Are you saying that your argument is equivalent to this? Because is seems as though you’re saying that the actuality of 1 + 1 = 5 being false, is a given.
It is very relevant and you cannot bang on your ignorance of such events.
I have already explained St Anselm, Descartes and others of the likes position on the ontological God. I have already done this a few times and I am not going to go through that again.
You need to understand it is because of your resistance [naturally] that I have to waste loads of time in much repetitions.
For you, I can present P2 as
“P2. God is absolutely perfect”
as claimed by the more advanced theologians.
In this case, the premise is still valid.
Generally, the term ‘perfect’ or ‘absolute’ alone is sufficient for the point. I had emphasized the premise with ‘absolutely-perfect’, ‘imperatively-MUST’ which are repetitive terms but in my case, it is necessary to drive home the point.
Yours above is a mess. You are fussing unnecessarily.
It is a fact I have actually presented, demonstrated, show, and the likes, my argument ‘God is an impossibility to be real’.
There is nothing wrong in saying, it is my thesis [theoretical] ‘God is an impossibility to be real.’
Thesis: a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections: Dictionary.Com
I have already explained this many times. I am not wasting my time repeating it.
It is not given per se.
It is false within the common subject of Arithmetic.
My argument that ‘It is possible God exists’ is a moot, i.e. a non-starter just like claiming ‘1 + 1= 5’ within Arithmetic or a square-circle exists within Geometry, is moot.
Hmm. I asked you for the quotes of St Anselm and Descartes arguing what you had, which I believe is reasonable, because you claimed they had. You’ve refused to provide the quotes, and the thrust of your explanation for not doing so it is that I am ignorant and somehow at fault?
This is the second time you’ve taken this approach when I’ve asked you for evidence. The first time, you naturally get the benefit of the doubt. But this time, until proven otherwise, I am going to assume that neither St Anselm or Descartes, can be quoted as arguing what you have.
You have emphasised “[to be real]”. This is a claim of actuality, but you previously stated “I have never intended absolute perfection must actually be an impossibility.” In this case your claims are not consistent.
Your P1 broadly states “absolute perfection is impossible”. There is no distinction of whether you’re referring to reality/actuality, or whether you mean the idea/notion. So which is it?
If 1 + 1 = 5 is false within arithmetic and a square-circle is moot within geometry, what is “it is possible God exists” moot/false in?
I know I have done so in the past, not going to keep repeating them.
You can read up St. Anselm, Descartes and others on their claims of their ontological God as perfect, absolute, supreme, than which no greater can exists. This can be easily referenced from the internet via google, etc.
In the OP, the P1 is the simplified version.
Later in the post, I explained P2 should be; P1 God is an impossibility to be real.
The reason is God is a possibility as a thought and for moral reason, thus I made it more precise by addition ‘to be real’ to the extend of God being able to listen and answering prayers.
Within Metaphysics, Ontology, Empiricism and Reality.
Meanwhile, God is a possibility and necessity within Morality for Kant [not me] but such a God is not real.
If God is not absolutely perfect, then P1 has no relevance to it’s existence. And if God is absolutely perfect, as you have (let’s be honest) argued it must be, then absolute perfection is possible. This is what I find contradictory.
If theists claim that God is absolutely perfect based upon their value judgements, how are we to attribute reality to their claim, a claim that we have no way of knowing the validity of, and then claim that the reality we attribute is impossible?
What I mean, is how can we both affirm their subjective claim of absolute perfection, by saying “P2 must be so”, and then deny it by saying that their claim is impossible after we have affirmed it? If our view is that God must be absolutely perfect, then how can we claim that it is purely the theists view?
So the question is, are you claiming that God does or does not have to be absolutely perfect?
Also, you stated that “Absolute Perfection is not a fact but it is an inter-subjective judgment which is merely reasoned but not empirically grounded.”
If you believe that this is the case, how could you prove that the inter-subjective judgement of absolute perfection was not an actuality (or fact) in any and all cases, without referring to your own subjective value judgements? In short, to claim that “absolute perfection is impossible to real”, you would have to be able to identify even the minutest imperfection in everything real. And even if you could do that, the observed imperfections would be based upon your subjective judgements. It is very problematic.
I wonder how personal a beef with a god can get. Stop worrying about what other’s define as a god. They’re inaccurate, and if you’re only beef is with someone elses inaccuracies, then think about it for yourself. It’s getting old, yammering on about someone else’s gods. Let’s talk some about the one that you think fucked you. Absolutely, not just JTB’d. That’s a rabbit hole.
When theists claimed that their God is absolute perfect, it is based on some desperate psychology and jumping to conclusion without any sound justifications at all.
Thus I would not want to state, “the theists are basing upon their value-judgment” as if that is of some value.
Kant denounced this act as ‘pseudo-rational’ from being duped [by their psychology].
Elsewhere Kant referred to such ‘bad judgment’ as literally ‘stupid’.
I have mentioned many times, the claim that God exists as real and is absolutely perfect, is akin to claiming a square-circle or other contradictions exist as real.
Because God exists are real is a contradiction, there is no question of ‘attributing reality to their claim’.
It [a contradiction] is moot and a non-reality as far as ‘reality’ is concern.
Because it is moot and a non-reality, there is no concern for us to deal with “knowing the validity of.”
Because the idea of a real God is moot and a non-reality, it is obviously impossible to exists as real.
It would appear you have no sense of compassion for humanity.
The “beef with a god” should be humanity’s concern, argued as follows;
God is believed to exists as real.
God is so real, that it has delivered real commands to believers via real messengers.
Some commands from the supposedly ‘real’ God contain loads of evil laden elements.
These evil laden elements triggered the vulnerable evil prone believer to commit terrible genocides, evil and violent acts upon non-believers and humanity to ensure they are reap the reward of eternal life in paradise.
The commands of this ‘real’ could even trigger SOME believers to exterminate the human species, especially when they get access to cheap WMDs [nukes and biological].
Because the ‘real’ God promised extraordinary rewards for martyrdom, SOME believers will not hesitate to use the WMDs, since regardless the human species is extinct, they will have eternal life in heaven as promised by their ‘real’ God.
Note the potential extermination of the human species [6] follows all the way from a belief in a supposedly real-God [actually a falsehood and illusory] [1].
If you have an active and efficient moral compass, then you have to have ‘beef’ with a ‘belief, God exists as real’ to prevent the potential extermination of the human species from this possible source of evil.
The above is very possible as extrapolating from this trend, thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg
and the full range of evil and violent committed by the “religion of peace” leveraged on the belief ‘God exists as real’.
Nevermind. I see that you’re not going to answer my questions directly. However, it is evident that you believe you’ve proven God’s existence is an impossibility as an actuality. Which means, based upon your syllogism, that you believe that you’ve done the same with absolute perfection. This is what I am trying to illicit from you, the true nature of your claims.
Based upon what you’ve argued, your syllogism should read;
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility [as a reality/actuality]
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect [as a hypothesis]
C… Therefore God is an impossibility. [as a reality/actuality]
P2 is problematic, because if theists claim this, there is no way of knowing whether this claim is true or not; it can neither be validated or disproved. Unlike your P1 and C, P2 is not claimed as a reality/actuality. And as KT has eluded to, God’s “absolute perfection” is very debatable.
You are right, the harm done in the name of a god is worth crying one’s heart out over. I have, and likely will again.
I hate to put statistics into play in such serious regard, but the carnage man has done to man for reasons that have nothing to do with a god, dwarf a gods roll in comparison.
Poets priests and politicians have been involved way before any notion of Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic traditions have played their hand. Slave trade and the out right slaughter of the loser in any conflict has simply paved the way, and that wasn’t a god’s fault either, it’s man’s fault, and what ever and where ever they have laid the blame is nothing more then a scapegoat.
I don’t know a god, but I have done some soul searching, asking some hard questions of what ever higher consciousness is out there. Me and it are square, what ever it is, but what ever it is, it bears no resemblance to the god you’ve got issues with, and it doesn’t mind one bit, me being an atheist.
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility [as a reality/actuality]
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect [as a reality/actuality as claimed by theists]
C… Therefore God is an impossibility. [as a reality/actuality as claimed by theists]
That is the point, if theists insist imperatively on P2 but in no way can know their claim can be true or not, then in no way can they know their God is a possibility to be real, thus an impossibility to be real.
I am not disproving the theists’ claim.
By reason, the theists’ claim is moot and a non-starter.
Can you provide a recognised principle to support this claim?
Despite the fact that theists may claim this, what actual necessity is there for God to be absolutely perfect? Why can’t an imperfect God exist?
I believe that your conclusion is based upon a premise (P1) that cannot, by very its nature, be demonstrated objectively. Your conclusion makes an absolute claim relating to objective reality, which is based upon an unproven premise (P1). With regards to P2, I don’t think that theists claims have any effect upon the actual (should such a being exist) nature of God?
I don’t believe that “thus an impossibility to be real” follows from the rest of what you’ve stated, and I think that you’re aware of that. Before you added that, the statement held true (IMV). Theists cannot know if God is real or not, if they could this debate wouldn’t even be taking place. As you know they believe via faith. Faith in-itself, as a belief system, neither validates or disproves the existence of God.
I don’t understand why you think that you’re not attempting to disprove the existence of God? If you think that your argument functions in the way you describe, then your claim is that it is a priori.
Some theists claim this. Some. And even scriptures give a more complicated message, at least in Judaism and Christianity where God is clealry not absolutely perfect. Polytheists and indigenous groups have all sorts of versions of deities. He just needs the claim to be that God is absolutely perfect. So, those who say that are ‘advanced’.
I agree. He has limited his scope to those most suited to his claim, and therefrom deduced a completely holistic claim.
Iknowright.
Thanks man. I’m trying to get there. He said he’s open to counters, intellectual integrity and so on, so I expect him to at least engage on the basis of these claims. As long as I engage with him strictly relating to his argument, I expect him to reply. I can’t help, but feel sneaky though.
I have recognised my own breaking point though. If he maintains that there are no justified counter-arguments, then I’m going to crack. Not solely because of my arguments, but because of the way he’s ducking the points, denying what he’s previously been adamant about and recanting without admitting it.
It is too tiring to go through the above all over again.
I am not attempting to disprove the existence of God.
What I an telling theists is,
if they theists insist God [similar to a square-circle] exists, then it a contradiction, as such it is a non-starter.
The point is, by default [of logic] a contradiction cannot be true.
I have mentioned what is held to be true range from opinion, belief and knowledge [justified true belief].
Faith is not justified true belief but range from blind belief [opinion] to personal conviction.
However, where one apply faith on a contradiction, e.g. idea of God as real, that is by default false and moot, thus a non-starter.
What you do here is merely complain, complain, and complain as if I am guilty of some intellectual crime. Hey, this is not a crime prone location.
What is not conducive is a ‘sneaky’ and ‘snarky’ attitude from those who counter.
What you lack here is sound counter arguments.
