Yes, there is no absolute certainty of absoluteness.
Certainty of Absoluteness is an impossibility to be real.
However theists claim their god is of absolute certainty.
Therefore the theists’ claim of God as absolutely real is moot and a non-starter.
If the above is your claim …??
Where is your proof for that ultimately one God?
Even theoretically, if a God cannot be inferior to itself, then it has be absolute.
But as demonstrated above and as you stated there is no absolute certainty to the above.
If we are incapable “as of now” of absolute certainty of anything? It seems odd that you would then claim a god is an impossibility, cause that sounds rather like there is no margin at all for the absolute lack of certainty and a reliance on relative justifiable beliefs.
Putting the two thoughts in conjunction, it sounds sort of like you are saying, “I can’t be certain that a god is an impossibility.” And more study in the matter should be engaged and we should be spending less time on the dogma of institution and believing in someone else’s mistaken wholeness of knowledge.
This might be a silly track and lately I’ve been told I’ve said some dumb things, I’ll risk sharing another thought. An other attribute that has described gods in all knowing. Certainty, absolutely. Given that perspective, you’d know if you were an impossibility or a being or were a being or will be, I mean you Know. Within the knowledge of knowledge I would think ‘all knowing’ would be certain.
I’m not claiming as a fact, with utter certainty, that a god Is all knowing, but neither can be anyone, yet that has not seemed to stop them all from trying to convince others regardless.
It’s a human thing not a god thing. Absolute perfection could exist in a spectrum of thought that we just haven’t been aware of in our observational capacity.
Note I argued
“God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.”
If you are countering my argument, then it has to be;
‘God is not impossible to be real empirically and philosophically’.
In that case, you have to show proofs God [ontological God] is possible to be real empirically and philosophically.
Note, the ontological God,
“god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived” - St. Anselm.
being absolutely perfect do not have any empirical elements at all.
If such a god do not have any empirical element, how can be possible to be real empirically and philosophically?
Note I presented the argument, but it is not me who is making a positive claim.
It is the theists who are making a positive claim of absolute certainty, i.e. God exists as real empirically and philosophically.
As previously mentioned, the theists’ claim is like ‘a square-circle’ which we can reasoned with certainty within the laws of logic, is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.
Thus as with a square-circle, the absolute perfect God as real empirically and philosophically is a contradiction, thus is moot and a non-starter.
What you are claiming is like ‘it is possible for a square-circle’ to exist as real empirically and philosophically. This moot and a non-starter. This meant it cannot even qualify as a hypothesis.
As I had argued, why theists insist on their positive claim of God existing as real, when it is an impossibility as a non-starter, is due to their desperate existential psychology.
While I have argued it is an impossibility for the theists’ claim of God existing as real empirically and philosophically, you are making a provision/allowance, that the theists’ claim my be possible without proofs at all.
Why you are making this allowance of possibility is also due the same desperate existential psychology, albeit of a lower degree.
I would suggest you research more in depth into your own psychology [Know Thyself] to find out why in you are in such an agnostic position.
Cause we really don’t know these things. In every event there is the possibility that things go wrong, How ever finely tuned the process, accidents happen. This would be to us like the addition of something we thought nothing could be added too. Accidents. Will we ever be capable of producing a string of outcomes without accidents happening?
I have noted what you have argued and I have argue a counter position. You can’t be certain of a claimed impossibility because what ever the step forward imperialism and philosophy are, they fall short of getting beyond the certainty problem.
I have already stated, if theists claim their God is an empirical monkey-like-God [e.g Hanuman] or bearded-man in the sky, or whatever is empirical-based existing as real in a planet some n-light years away, I will grant this is an empirically possibility, because such a god is attributed fully with empirical elements.
The next step is for these theists to bring the empirical evidence of such a claim to be verified and confirmed.
While in theory this is empirically possible, the chances of such a god is not probable at all in practice.
But my argument in the OP is against an ontological God which has no empirical elements at all.
Because it has no empirical elements, it is impossible for such a God to be real empirically and philosophically.
If you live by that rule [which is wrong] how can your ‘possible claim’ be absolutely certain to be possible?
Point is you are conflating too many elements.
What is a square circle? The problem of squaring a circle with a straight edge is a moot. If the problem is the derivative of the are area respective in each it seem plausible a square and a circle can have the same area. But determining the exact area of a circle is a problem in and of itself. Does that imply a circle does not have an exact area it encloses or does it imply given the math available that it can’t be exactly determined?
“Wrong”, as impossibility or as a possibility? I don’t have to be certain of it as possibility, I can’t be certain of either. Because I can’t be absolutely certain of either extent. While an argument of impossibility must be an absolute extent which we haven’t the capacity for, either way. Like I said I’m not a theist, more of a practice of agnosticism. In other words the potential for a next best guess and lesser guesses appears to exist.
Note that there is no actual argument or explanation pertaining to the elements he’s claimed Mowk has conflated - just an arbitrary assertion. I don’t see any conflations or logical issues with what Mowk has stated, what he’s saying seems reasonable to me.
This is just junk and he has been repeating it for years as if it is deduction, when in fact 1) the deduction is never fully carried out and 2) it wouldn’t work if it was performed.
Any God which is inferior to another person’s POSITED God would be inferior to that other person’s God.
Let’s get in there a little deeper. First, above I added the idea that the theist who says that God is absolutely perfect (a phrase used probably by less than a tiny fraction of one % of theists) is POSITING that that God is perfect. Or to put this another way, that theist believes that God is absolutely perfect.
He or she could be right or wrong. There might be a perfect God. There might be another kind of God. Yes, such a theist is CLAIMING that God is absolutely perfect and one could argue then that his or her God is therefore, in the abstract, as a conception of a deity, better than someone’ conception who simply argues that God is great and beyond us in all categories of being: intelligence, power, moral goodness,whatever, but not absolutely perfect. The first theists conception might be a conception of a more perfect God. That doesn’t make it a superior conception, especially if it is incorrect.
Implicit in his junk argument above is either 1) that if one can conceive of a more perfect God, than that more perfect version of God is the one that is more likely to be the case.
Or…
another junk conclusion is…
2) One must, for some reason, believe in a more perfect version of God, one that is not fallible, if such an idea exists.
Note 1) is an argument about ontology. That the most perfect conceived version of God is the only one we must disprove since it is ‘superior’ to other versions. That because it is a more extreme conception, for magical reasons, we must accept it over others that are less extreme. Or 2) one cannot believe in a less perfect version of God.
Argument 1) we know is false. If someone believes that perfect circles exist this does not mean that circular forms do not exist. There is absolutely no reason why we must assume that if there is a God that God is absolutely perfect.
Argument 2) fails because we know people believe in fallible or not mathemtically perfect deities.
Then we have the bald assertion, with no support, that…
First this is not supported.
Second, Are we really conceiving a greater being when we add the adverb ‘absolutely’?
No, we are not conceiving anything. We just added an utterly abstract adverb to an utterly abstract adjective ‘perfect’.
We are using words to refer to something we cannot really conceive. In fact many theists recognize the problems with conceiving. God is great. God is beyond us in many categories. God is perfect. God is absolutely perfect. Words.
Third, his entire position is based on a confusion.
This is how some people think about God. God must be like how those, that particular group of people, think about God. That particular group’s version of God is the only possible correct conception of God. They are wrong in that conception. Therefore there is no God.
Using that kind of logic we could have ruled out the existence of all sorts of things that science now considers to be the case.
People think that the experience of the parents do not effect the traits of their offspring because genes express as traits and Lamark was wrong, pure genetic factors express as the traits of the child.
whoops, epigenetics. What parents experience can and does affect traits in the children. Even if the children are adopted at birth. Because of epigenetic factors.
Humans can have fallible conceptions of things, but they sitll can be partly or nearly completely correct AND have a belief, in existent things or patterns. It is true that genes express as traits, however epigenetic factors such as the experiences of the parents can affect the expression of genes in the children, even in grandhildren.
IOW one could argue that a Darwinianism without epigenetic factors is superior since it posits a perfect control of genes and nothing is passed on from parental experiencing. But it’s wrong.
He is confusing the perfection of a conception with its liklihood of being true. And that’s just silly.
His arguments are confused in dozens of ways, and often in short portions of text.
And plenty of people have pointed this out to him and he
does
not
have
adequate
responses.
A further utter naiv understanding about human nature plays out in his posts furthering the types of deductive weakness I just outlayed…
Yes, people often talk about their gods as perfect or great or all powerful. Most of them will say that the power, insight, etc of their God is beyond their imagining. And when pressed will use superlatives and talk about perfection. Some theists. But we have this tendency in relation to earthly leaders, to parents and mentors. To use superlatives, to speak in poetic terms.
If I say that my girlfriend is perfect and loves me unconditionally, this may be a superior conception of my girlfriend, but that doesn*t make it a better conception of her or the most correct one. The fact that no perfectly loving human can exist
does not prove that my girlfriend does not exist.
He’s making several category errors at once.
That this is taken both by some theists and by atheists to mean that really God must be some kind of absolutely not bound my logic or any limitation perfect entity
is a silly conclusion. I have sympathy for those atheists who just assume that this pattern in mainly certain Abrahamic theologians means this is how God is always conceived and is meant to be taken literally and at the level of infinity and perfection. But it’s a naive interpretation.
They don’t know how powerful and wonderful and…etc. They just believe that it is more than anything else. Not more than some abstract phrase can be thought up to describe.
Prismatic uses an appeal to authority as the basis of all his ‘proofs’
These theists in group X are correct, if anyone is, in how their conceive God. They are ‘advanced.’ So their version of God is the only one that needs to be disproved.
That is, ironically nearly beyond imagining, an atheist using a subgroup of theists in an appeal to authority.
That should be repeated several times.
An atheist knows which conceptions of God are the correct ones. He knows which theists to believe, if any. Any others can be ruled out by making up rules like…
as if Prismatic is a theologian himself and the only one who should be believed.
Add onto this ludicrousness his conflation of ontology with what human fallible minds come up with and we have junk.
Some cosmologists (that is that subset of physicists) think the universe is infinite.
The universe is an entity such that no greater entity can be conceived
Therefore the universe is infinite, if it exists.
Then in someone can demonstrate that it is not infinite, the fucking universe doesn’t exist.
Duh.
The existence of things is not dependent on how some of us conceive of them.
It is lazy ass crap. Repeated over and over and never, not once, conceding that he is just making shit up.
Here’s a possibility. Some entity created the universe. Companed to us it has unbelievable power. It is so far beyond us that we can throw superlatives at it. It is fallible. Or at least it can’t perhaps, kill itself or undo time or make stones so heavy it can’t life them. It is limited by paradoxes of certain kinds. Perhaps it has a temperment. Perhaps it has to experiment Perhaps some of its creations are not quite what it wanted - as some theist believe. so it made others. But compared to us in everyday language it is all powerful, even though there are certain things it cannot do. Perhaps this entity is extremely loving, even when hated, in ways that are beyond humans ability to love. But perhaps it gets pissed off sometimes.
IOW perhaps it is not a mathematically omnipotent perfect nothing, not contradiction, can limit in any way.
There are theist conceptions of God that like this. Perhaps they are correct. In any case nothing Prismatic has ever said demonstrates such a being does not exist.
Humans, say, come into contact with this entity via prayer or contemplation or grace or visits and use words to describe it and this seems to indicate absolute perfection to SOME theologians. That some theologians come up with a mathematical interpretation of human language does not mean their conception is superior or their God is superior. In fact it would be inferior since it is not correct.
Now let’s be clear. I am not presenting an argument that this God exists. I am saying that Prismatic’s claim does not touch this or many other possible Gods’ existence. Frankly I don’t even think he has proven that an absolutely perfect God cannot or does not exist. Because those words are not clear at all in their meaning. But he hasn’t come anywhere near even starting some argument that shows that God doesn’t exist.
He does not know the various theisms well.
He cannot introspect well enough to notice that the way he frames the debate suits his needs.
He appeals to the authority of people he considers irrational.
He does not respond to counterarguments in a rational way.
He makes claims he cannot back up.
He confuses fallibility of human conception with the existence of things and processes.
He does not understand human nature and the use of language or emotions.
And he is a conceptual polluter, littering philosophy forums with claims of his own accomplishments.
And he’s rude.
I don’t think he intends to be rude.
But he is responsible for his rudeness, nevertheless, since he does not have the courage to actually consider the counterarguments and comments on the way he interacts with people, ever.
Even if several clearly intelligent people point out things he is doing either in relationship to othe rposters or conceptually…
he does not take this seriously.
And there have to be signs in his personal life, academic life if he has one and professional life that he has certain blind spots. If he is having contact with other people, the kinds of blind spots apparent here are being pointed out by girlfriends and bosses and academic advisers, if he has any of these things. If he doesn’t, that should let him know there is aproblem. If he does, then he is ignoring them. And therefore gets responsibility for his behavior even if he means well and is so damn sure of his own rationality.
No it doesn’t. Your argument is a proposition - its not a proof. One need only argue logically that God’s existence is not impossible, and show that the parameters you’ve used for your argument don’t demonstrate that. This has been done.
Coincidentally, to demand empirical and philosophical proofs for God doesn’t seem right when you’ve already rejected all of them? As such, the debate would just develop into people positing reasons for God’s existence, and you rejecting them on well known grounds. Why would you post an argument effectively asking for/expecting proofs of God?
Also, it is clear that you have no problem with repeating yourself. Yet when I asked you to provide the quote of St Anselm and Descartes arguing what you had, you refused on the basis of repetition and told me that I should look myself, even though you made the positive claim. You also refused on the basis of repetition, when I asked you for a recognised principle which supports your P1. And when I asked you whether you thought that God had to be absolutely perfect you just plain refused to answer. The reason for this is clearly not an issue of repetition. For some reason you don’t want to answer these questions, I think because of the implications they may have upon what you’ve argued.
Given your continual (and I believe unreasonable) perception of rightness on this matter, I don’t see why I should drop this.
Apart from your correct response he is also confused, as I have seen him repeatedly be confused, about what a critique of argument X needs to do to show that argument X is faulty
If Prismatic argues that X is true, he can be correct, but his argument could be riddled with logical errors, poor premises and so on. It does not matter if you can demonstrate that
not X is correct. His arguments can be completely confused and unsound even if his conclusion is correct.
Further, even in the case where he is incorrect, one still does not need to show that the opposite is the case when critiquing his argument.
If he says the earch circles the sun because water forms a spiral when he flushes, we do not have to demonstrate that the earth does not go around the sun to show his argument is a mess.
If he says bats are sad because they fly at night - I am guessing the conclusion that bats are sad is wrong - we don’t have to demonstrate that bats are not sad. We can just judge his argument on its merits or lack thereof.
I know you know all this. I just needed to share my being aghast.
I have stated, the theists’ claimed that God is a possibility to be real empirically and philosophically analogically to claiming a square-circle exists as real empirically and philosophically.
The theists claimed their God is so real, God listens and answers their prayers plus performing all the empirical things within the universe.
Do you insist a square-circle can possibly exists as real empirically and philosophically?
A square-circle is a contradiction, as such it is moot and a non-starter.
You don’t seem to get the point.
Generally within the rational philosophical community, absolute certainty is an impossibility.
Wittgenstein discussed the point in his ‘On Certainty’.
Science approach implies there is no absolute certainty.
Russell stated, philosophy do not deal with absolute certainty but rather raised questions.
But the point is, it is the theists who are claiming their God exists as real empirically and philosophically with Absolute Certainty.
What I have demonstrated to the theists is absolute certainty is an impossibility and thus their God [as claimed] is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
You are a bit lost on the above;
Example:
Some theists insist within basic Arithmetic, 1+1=7.
I argued the theists they are wrong, i.e. not possible to be true within basic Arithmetic.
Now you come in to insist my argument whilst right within basis Arithmetic is true, it cannot be of absolute certainty, because absolute certainty is an impossibility.
Your counter is irrelevant because 1+1=7 within basic Arithmetic is moot and a non-starter.
As such the proposition 1+1=7 should not even be raised in the first place for it to be opened to any possibility because absolute certainty is impossible.
Are you insisting a murderer who is convicted with VERY clear proofs and sentenced to death can plea for ‘possibility of innocence’ because absolute certainty he is guilty is an impossibility?
I assume you mean in the sense of perceptual contradiction. So it seems by your reasoning, because of your applied use of the term “impossible” you believe that all perceptual contradictions are impossible? Or is it just square-circles and God?
If that is the case, what about the perceptual contradiction of a human-being claiming to know that absolute perfection is an impossibility? Why isn’t that idea moot and a non-starter?
demonstrating that a square-circle is a good analogy for a God that can affect empirical reality will be very tough. Given that we define square and circle, but there are many definitions of deities and many theists who claim that we cannot know all the qualities of deities.
Simulation hypostheses - here’s one en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis - give a technological parallel to a transcendent deity that can enter in empirical reality and affect it. IOW a species creates our universe, but as a simulation. Like admins in gaming world, they can also enter, communicate with ‘players’, break the rules if they want to, give information and tips and so on. This idea has obviously not been proven to be the case but some physicists consider it even likely that we are in a simulation. It is certainly not ruled out by science. There is no contradiction.
Even with something so obviously paradoxical as a square circle a little asterisk of caution should be in place. Particles and waves had contradictory definitions. So one presumed, and the consensus within science presumed, that these could not simultaenously describe ‘something’. And yet they can effectively describe something as we found out in qm. Non-Euclidian geometry, which seemed like just some unreal mental experiment ended up explaining certain portions of reality (post-Einstein) better than Euclidian, also. I am not predicting that we will find square circles, however even this supposedly ‘duh, obviously impossible’ should have an asterisk. We are fallible creatures in situ and this kind of ruling out always stands some tiny chance of being contradicted later.
I think the most damning weakness of his analogy is that it simply doesn’t hold, that is number one.
But perhaps if he repeats it enough people will believe it must be accurate. I can understand. I am sure he thinks theists get away with repeating that something is the case without demonstrating this
so it must be frustrating enough, when facing this, to compel him to do the same thing.
What will this elicit, if anything?
Appeals to authority, repetition of claims, appeal to incredulity, certainty about what a deity must be if it exists to show that it doesn’t, demands for counterproof.
I was thinking of particle-wave duality too. When I think of a square-circle as an impossibility. In my mind there is a nagging doubt that somehow, in some way, maybe in the future, it might not be as contradictory as it now appears to be. I believe that an understanding of my own ability and fallibility prevents me from concluding such things absolutely. More so, to believe that I could possibly arrange mental abstractions (like absolute perfection) into “a” conclusive truth. Not reasonable/solid opinions, logical ideas or even reasonably accurate inter-subjective view points, but a one single conclusive truth - “it is impossible” - as if I had done the math or science. To me that just doesn’t seem right.
For us he has chosen to not respond, but to others I suspect all of these.
If we look at the definitions of particle and wave - and certainly before qm, they were mutually exclusive. You simply could not meet the criteria for both and criteria clashed. And then…
That’s what the obviousness of square-circles is founded on: a clash of definitions. No ‘thing’ can meet both sets of criteria. And anything meeting the criteria of one is necessarily, or so it seems, ruled out from meeting the criteria of the other.
I suppose another comment on geometric shapes in relation to Prismatic’s argument is that platonists believe there are transcendent forms, that are real and exist, though not ‘here’ and these affect or somehow lead to the approximate versions we find in nature. Many, many, if not most mathematicians are platonists and a good number of physicists are mathematical platonists. IOW it is not taken for granted that transcendent ‘things’ cannot have empirical effects.
Effect might nto be the right word. It might be more like ‘manifestations’, but still I think his whole argument using geometric analogies is problematic. I think, actually, they are reasonable arguments to raise: but they do not demonstrate or prove. They have deductive potential, but cannot be used to rule out.
I suppose my mentioning physicists and mathematicians and science if a kind of appeal to authority, but it is in relation to his ruling out things, as if these are obvious.