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.
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”.
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.
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.
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 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.
If your argument is analogous to basic arithmetic (as you claim), then it seems patent that you’re claiming your argument is an axiom. But further, because of what you’ve subsequently argued, it seems as though you’re claiming that your argument is an axiom in every sense, because you stated (amongst other things) that proofs must be produced to counter-argue. This raises many questions, but what I’ll stick with, is how can you claim both that your argument is an axiom and also claim a position of non-certainty? Your arguments in this case seem to be contradictory.
I wouldn’t say he is saying his argument is an axiom, but he does seem to be saying that the premises in his argument are axioms and that the rules for deduction are as controlled as they are in systems WHERE WE MAKE UP THE AXIOMS and the rules. Which is silly. It is an abstract system without empirical content. The existence of God situation has to do with real or posited as real entities. That is an entirely different situation. Mainly me being fussy about the word axiom.
I think it is very odd he says it is moot. I don’t think he knows what that word means.
Felix: thought I’d throw some of my reactions at his response to you.
And now he adds in subjective evaluations. If they admit it, they are not sincere or proper. So he can leave them out of his statistics, which he never takes in any case.
My main point above is that we are not simply dealing with problematic arguments, but with a mind that does not undertand some fundamental logic and philosophy and one that does not learn over time.
Further, and perhaps relevant to his latest repetitions, he is taking a binary stance, which literally interprets a summation of theist positions that he has constructed himself and decides that in that form it must be false. Let’s say he is actually correct. There still could be a deity that can be experienced that is not absolutely perfect. So the theists would be in the main correct.
He uses an idiosyncratic ‘theist position on God’ as THE theist position on God. Attempts to prove this particular definition is false and then acts as if he has now demonstrated anything about reality. His position has not come anywhere near dealing with the possible existence of a diety, even one that is, in the main, similar to what some or most theists think. He just transfered SOME of their ways of describing God, into a single statement taken mathematically, rather than expressively, and draws a conclusion from this about reality. Apart from being utterly unscientific, even anti-scientific, the binary confusion means the whole project is utterly meaningless.
I thought about it a lot before using the word “axiom” to describe how Prismatic possibly perceives his argument. I considered whether there was, on his part, any admission of uncertainty or self-questioning about his claim(s), and the fact that he believes that the God debate, because of his argument, is now irrelevant - his arithmetic analogy was the clincher. Given these factors (and his arguments in general), I thought there were enough reasons to claim that he believed his argument was an axiom in every sense of the word.
So apart from on this point, I agree with what you say, as I’m hesitant to retract my claim just yet. I’m not going to say that you are wrong, because I don’t think you are and I could be mistaken, but Prismatic believes that his argument demonstrates that it is impossible for God to exist. So as you say, he must at least believe that the premises are axioms, even if he doesn’t understand that, or believe that the argument in totality is.
You have every right to be fussy about the use of the word “axiom”, it is not something to be said lightly, but I feel it is in the right direction of what he’s claiming here, even if it’s not exactly that. He will have to clarify what he means by moot.