God is an Impossibility

Even the first sentence is a paradox:

Impossibility is an absolute term.

Which is an odd appeal to authority.

This repeats the paradox, though in a more cautious form.

And here of course we have a false dilemma. There are more things in heaven and earth than questions/absolute certainty. And Russell certainly believed in knowledge.

Again, just for the record, this is his rendition of me, not my own. Although, sure, it may actually be possible [philosophically or psychologically or otherwise] to determine which of us is closest to the actual objective truth. If, in regard to relationships of this sort, there even is an objective truth.

Same with God. One of us here may be closer to the whole truth about Him [or No Him] than anyone else. Or maybe someone in another philosophy discussion on another website is. Or maybe someone around the globe that none of us have any access to is.

Or…someone from another planet? Or from an entirely separate universe?

Look, if he wants to believe that I am certain that my own argument here is the closest to the whole truth [going back to the complete understanding of existence itself] let him.

He has a “personal problem” with me that I suspect I understand.

But, in no way, shape or form am I certain of it.

Yeah, I never said that, the bolded portion. After what he quoted I went on to mention that he would be surprised to be categorized this way, I thought, and that his certainty related to means. A common practice of Iambs: strawman argument, shift context, and often in ways that imply that the other person is off in some way . And when it is pointed out, he’ll deny he did anything wrong. In fact he’ll just start asking questions because everyone has the onus, even for his acts, not him.

And sure, what I meant by means could be explained in detail, but it would take a rather manipulative mind to interpret it as

his certainty is that his argument is the closest to the whole truth going back to a complete understanding of existence itself.

He suspects he knows what the root of my personal problem with him is. IOW he suspects it is not what I have said it is.

It’s good that someone who does not know his own ‘i’, experiences himself and fractured and fragmented and so on, still finds the confidence to dismiss what other people say their motivations are and to think he can read their minds. Yes, he’s not certain, that I am wrong or lying about why I react to his posts the way I do. LOL. IOW he doesn’t know his own self, he doesn’t know how to find what is authentic in his own mind - he’s said this - but he can still figure out what other people’s minds are actually like inside, yes, without complete certainty.

But let’s applaud his development. He used to just announce that people had problems with him because his ideas scared them. Now he just has suspicions. He used to tell people what their contraptions were: iow he would tell them what they believed and then also that they did this to soothe themselves. Now he makes little passive aggressive implications to the gallery. He’s even taken responsibility, without qualification, for driving people from ILP and even predicted he would do this to me. Several psychic abilities at once. But he’s pulled back to just implying shit about other people.

I honestly thought he would not change at all. I stand corrected by the changes.

I do wonder if implying shit about other people shows an epistemological caution or if it’s just passive aggressive. But he is more consistant now. He doesn’t just tell people what they feel and think and have as motivations. He implies and he suspects.

If only he could have acknowledged his previous more open hypocrisy. Heck, he’d solved the problem of other minds. Deny certainty in one post. Tell people what they really thought in another post.

It seems he learned something…to be cagier.

Right, as though a common practice of his isn’t in making accusations of this sort about me as though in asserting them, it makes them so. Me, I’ll let others decide for themselves if his points are applicable.

On the other hand, we hear accusations of this sort time and again here at ILP. In other words, whenever someone isn’t able to convince someone else to think like they do. It more or less goes with the territory in discussion venues of this sort. It’s just that the objectivists really do insist that all rational men and women must think like they do [here about the impossibility of god] or be charged with one or another of KTs allegations.

Again, my point about certainty here revolves around this:

But I’m certainly not suggesting to others here that it is mine. My points make sense to me, but only given the manner in which I myself am able to distinguish between what I believe and what I am in fact able to demonstrate. For the objectivists, I have found from vast personal experience that this gap is considerably narrower. And, for some, doesn’t exist at all.

And, in regard to this thread, my point is still this:

That’s his subjective take on me. My own subjective assumptions reflect more the points I made on another thread:

This still seems reasonable to me given my ample experience with objectivists over the years. But it is certainly no less an existential contraption than his own is here. And in focusing in on my sense of certainty, he needs to be reminded of his own in regard to me.

No, my point is that in regard to our thoughts and feelings about God, to what extent is the confidence one has in his or her own propositions, able to be reconfigured into demonstrable evidence that all rational people are obligated tlo believe the same.

To argue for the impossibility of God is not the same as demonstrating that God does not exist. That’s always my point. Where’s the actual evidence? And it is simply preposterous to argue that I can figure out what’s going on in another’s mind!!

All I do [can do] is to take an existential leap to one or another extrapolation based on my past experiences. After all, for any of us, what else is there?

The best way to explore these accusations is for him and I to focus in on a particular aspect of a belief in God or No God. Then agree on a context in which people hold conflicting assessments that then translate into conflicting behaviors.

We can discuss this. Thus allowing him to point out in much greater detail why his assessment of me is more reasonable.

For example, my argument regarding a fractured and fragmented self embedded in the manner in which I construe “I” as the embodiment of dasein…re my own particular belief in God/No God.

Or let him choose his own context. Anything to get us down out of the clouds.

As explained above I did not actually claim “God [existing as real] is an impossibility” is a claim with “absolute certainty”.

It is the theists [more advanced theologians] who claimed “God exists as real” with “absolute certainty”.
What I have done is showing [demonstrating] the above claim of absolute certainty is moot and a non-starter.
If it is moot and a non-starter, that mean the claim is meaningless in the first place [it precedes anything else] and cannot proceed further as reasoned.

It is irrelevant to state I have made a claim of “absolute certainty” when ‘absolute certainty’ to me is an impossibility.

Note,
-that the theists [more advanced theologians] who claimed “God exists as real” with “absolute certainty” is itself a contradiction. “Absolute certainty” cannot be equivocated with “real” as in “real empirically and philosophically.”

Nope!
What I have is a philosophical problem [issue] with “your” self-declared psychological “personal problem” that you have dug yourself of a deep shit-hole and is stuck in it - seemingly pleading for help.
Whatever solutions me and others offered, you have a readily defense mechanism to ensure you are stuck in there for good [habituated] so you can wallow in it, with your dogmatic counter i.e. the solutions or counters by others are merely ‘intellectual contraptions’.
When that is the case as evident, why should any one be bothered and waste time with your own self-created shit-hole you are stuck in.

Yours is definitely ‘your’ personal problem and not a general philosophical issue.
Suggest you research;
simplypsychology.org/defens … nisms.html
where you always resort to use ‘intellectual contraptioni’ as a denial and other defense mechanisms as a psychological strategy to feel secure for your own selfish interests.

You cannot be even certain of what is your own personal problem.
You are so ignorant [have to emphasize this] that you are unable to differentiate between your ‘personal psychological problem’ and what is a ‘general/specific philosophical issue’. You have conflated the above two issues.

Since this is a Philosophical Forum, you should not have conflated your personal psychological problem with a general/specific philosophical issue.
I believed those who participated earlier in ignoring this mixed-up is driven by empathy to help, since you seemingly pleaded for help.

To avoid all the above, I suggest you represent the specific philosophical issue, i.e. an existential issue, in terms of Heidegger’s Dasein, angst, conflicting good, etc. and NOT to bring in your personal problems, of abortion, this life and other side of the grave, personal dasein, various diversions, blah-blah, etc.
Make sure it is a general/specific philosophical issue and has no subjective personal elements in it.

My presentation ‘God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically’ is purely a philosophical issue, not a personal problem.
All you need to do is to show [with evidence and rational justification] which of the premise 1 or 2 are false within the syllogism presented to affirm the conclusion is false.
My presentation is aimed primarily as a greater good for the well being of humanity, NOT for my own selfish interest.

Iambiguous:

Occasionally, and here as part of his profile, the hidden certainty is expressed directly. Which is actually to be encouraged.

Absolute certainty is implied by the word “impossibility” regardless of whether you explicitly claim it or not. So now by denying absolute certainty you are admitting that you’re not certain about your own proposition.
You have, in effect, joined the club with myself and others who think that God is at least possibility. Welcome!

When you state that theologians claim absolute certainty for the God hypothesis, who exactly do you have in mind? Christian theology going all the way back to the New Testament is explicitly a matter of faith not certain knowledge. That’s why Christians are normally referred to as “believers” not “knowers”.

This seems the reasonable result of a lack of certainty of impossibility. Prismatic believes that a god is an impossibility.

First of all, “he” above was in reference to KT. And, for the most part, I actually do respect his intelligence. Yours on the other hand I do not. Well, based on what little of yours I have read here.

But, sure, this too is no less an existential contraption.

With you I am only interested in this part:

Come on, what could you, an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the context of all there is [like me] possibly know with any degree of certainty about the existence of God – going all the way back in turn to a comprehensive understanding of Existence itself?

Other than in an “argument”. The truth of which is largely tautological. A world of words in which one insists that the manner in which they define the meaning of the words in the argument [about God no less!] are true by default.

Words that are almost never actually connected to a world such that evidence can be gathered, experiments can be performed, predictions can be made, results can be replicated.

Unless I missed this part in one of your posts.

Then [from my point of view] the psycho-babble part aimed at pinning me down once and for all:

All I can do here is to challenge you as I did KT above:

Again, note a particular context relating to the belief in God/No God, and let’s examine more substantively our respective sets of assumptions and conclusions.

The irony here being that the whole point of that [mine anyway] was in ridiculing the objectivists who construe all those who are not “one of us” in much the same manner.

Although, sure, sub-consciously, unconsciously, who the hell knows what propelled me here.

Besides, I become more and more convinced it may well have been nature itself that compelled me to put it there.

Prismatic,

If this is the function of your argument – how can it not be one of absolute certainty?

And of course many Christians, certainly mystic and many priests and pastors doubt, have periods of doubt, have dark nights of the soul and crises of faith. All of these people, who are on the expert end of their religion, don’t see belief as binary and pure, but something that shifts over degrees. And you’re quite right about christianity iit is not knowledge based, though many adherents don’t quite get this, but faith based. Other religions are much more empirical. I am black boxing the issue of are the interpretation of the experiences correct, but they are not faith based in conception.

Faith always implies doubt. Where there is certainty, there’s no need for faith.

As stated I am not making any claim of absolute certainty, it is the theists [advanced] who make the claim.

I gave the analogy;
If you claim within basic arithmetics 1+1=7 with absolute certainty I can show you, your claim is false, moot and is a non-starter.
I don’t have to claim with absolute certainty, it the basic arithmetic rules that you are wrong in your claim.

Yes, whilst Christians relies of faith, they are relying on faith to insist God is real with “absolute certainty” [in their mind] that God is of absolute perfection which is a contradiction.
Where have you heard a Christian or Muslim claimed ‘I am not very sure God exists or not?’

I have stated many times, note Descartes’ supremely perfect God and others who claimed God is absolute.

You can google ‘absolute God’ in relation to Christianity, Islam, and others, e.g.

Actually I would say that faith is a decision - or a series of decisions, really, and knowledge is a type of conclusion. They are entirely different ‘things’.

The proposition that God is only relatively impossible is self contradictory. If you’re admitting that you don’t know if God is impossible, I can accept that.

Your argument is in no way analogous to basic arithmetic. If it were, you might have convinced someone beside yourself of the truth of your deduction.

Have you ever listened to a Christian? I have. They frequently talk about their doubts and lack of faith. This goes all the way back to the New Testament Gospels where a guy says to Jesus “I believe; help thou my unbelief.” Your knowledge of Christianity is wafer-thin and inaccurate.

You know you actually might be right about Descartes who after claiming that his method was to doubt everything relied upon the God hypothesis to support the notion that anything exists it outside his mind. Bishop Berkeley’s empiricism was the reductio ad absurdum of that way of thinking. On this we seem to agree at the moment. But Descartes hardly represents the be-all-and-end-all of theology. Today, he’s more like a cautionary tale we can learn from.

As conscious products of the cognitive unconscious, I don’t think they are entirely different. But knowledge is always limited whereas faith recognizes the infinite that encompasses it and is present within it.

I am not sure what that means.

I do see overlap with decisions and conclusions. But conclusions tend to be about weighing and reasoning one’s way to a belief. Decisions it seem to me are not about truth per se. Regardless of what one might way, I decide to have attitude X. It’s more a desire.

Of course when individual Abrahamists (since they are the ones who focus on faith and counterpose it to belief and knowledge) use faith and belief and knowledge, they are all over the place.

The proposition is not ‘God is only relatively impossible.’
Note again,
The proposition is, ‘God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically’.

What I had proposed is against the theists’ claim,
“God exists as real empirically and by whatever.”

What I have shown is the theists’ claim is CONTRADICTORY, false and illusory, thus ‘God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically’ for the theists.
Therefore the theists’ claim is moot and a non-starter for them, not me.

Why not?
I have given another analogy of claiming ‘square-circle’ exists are real empirically and philosophically.

The above is a straw-man.
Yes, naturally there are a small % of Christians who doubt their faith which subsequently is reinforced or they get out of Christianity.
SOME may doubt their faith in one way, but they do not necessarily doubt God exists.

I asked,
Where have you heard the majority of sincere Christian or Muslim in general claimed 'I am not very sure God exists or not?”
Note I added ‘sincere’ or ‘proper’ ‘in-general’ to exclude the minor exceptions.

Descartes used ‘reason’ to justify his absolute certainty God exists as real empirically and philosophically.
The majority of Christians rely on faith to claim absolute certainty.
I note in most debates, those who are aware of Descartes would refer to his theological theories.

Note most lay-Christians, Muslims and other theists would rely on faith and general beliefs to claim absolute certainty God exists as real - to listens and answers their prayers, etc.
If they have heard of Descartes and others from their leaders, they will certainly jump to adopt Descartes’, St. Anselm’s ontological God, Berkeley’s, William Craig’s, or etc. God. It cost them nothing [just a matter of changing thoughts] to reinforce their supposedly ‘stronger’ and ‘reasoned’ theological belief.