God is an Impossibility

[Serendipper]

To understand the whole, one must understand the parts and their differences and how they are interdependent within the system.
Note for example Yin-Yang within the Tao, one must know understand the principles of each element. You can insist there is no difference between Yin and Yang.
It is the same Kant to differentiate between a priori and a posteriori and explain how they are interdependent with each other to enable knowledge to emerge. You have to read up Kant to understand [not necessary agree] before you critique his views.

Yin is the north, dark side of the mountain while yang is the south, sunny side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang#Meanings

The only way I can see a priori being a requirement for posteriori is if a priori engenders the subject (brain) through evolution which then enables the subject to view the object (empiricism, deduction). But the way Kant defines it makes no sense to me since he divides the object (empiricism, deduction) into 2 parts for no obvious reason other than to complicate matters.

So it would seem that Kant has ignored yin, then proceeded to divide yang into two parts and achieved notoriety for it, though not for his blunder.

I tried Kant once and it was so incredibly boring that I gave up on it. It reminds me of sitting in a tree waiting for a deer to walk by. It's far easier to simply ask you

Yes but not all brains can realize the a priori that other brains can which presents yet another slippery slope. Can a lizard grasp the concept of a quantity? But on the other hand plants can apparently perform complex calculations that estimate the amount of sugar that needs to be stored for the night until the sun is expected to rise the next morning. https://grist.org/living/plants-can-do-math/

Obviously a computer doesn't perform magic in computation, but is a series of switches that operate in a deterministic fashion like dominoes falling against each other. Likewise viewing a tree is a similar deterministic process of chemistry and is absolutely no different than the mathematical calculations performed by plants.
The only way to have a REAL distinction between a priori and posteriori is to conjure magic and insist there is some aspect of humanity that is not native to this universe, otherwise it's all chemical bubblings and happenings within a continuum with no discontinuities.

Our concern here is with humans not lizards.

Well then define humans. When did the first human come about? Evolution is a smooth continuous transition and there was never a point where we could say here is a human which came from this non-human. It's just like asking what was the day when you became old? It's another slippery slope since we can trace our ancestry back to a protoplasm globule and in fact, if you, for instance, believe the big bang, then we could say that we are the big bang still coming on. That singularity is grandpa.

To understand why humans accept seeming blindly why 1 + 1 = 2 we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.

What if 1+1=10? (binary) What if 1+1=1? (1 lump of clay added to another lump is 1 lump of clay.) And if 1+1=2 is so easy to understand, then which animals understand it and which do not? Does a gazelle realize there are 2 lions chasing it rather than 1? If so, is that empiricism or deduction?

If you throw a box of toothpicks on the floor and Rainman instantly knows the quantity of toothpicks, is it by empiricism or deduction? When idiot savants multiply ridiculously large numbers together in their heads, is it by empiricism or deduction? The only reason I know 7x7=49 is that I memorized it because I had to write it down a bazillion times in 3rd grade. To my knowledge, I have never deduced 7x7.

For a long time, humanity had no concept of zero because you can't have zero cows. If you have no cows, there is no need to write it down. https://www.livescience.com/27853-who-i ... -zero.html So is 1-1=0 a priori or not? After all, there are currently zero pink elephants chasing me.

To understand and resolve Hume's Problem of Induction, we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
There are many other philosophical issues that require the differentiation between a priori and a posteriori.

Yes, in order to have a debate about what forms life, we need to have a differentiation between life and nonlife because the debate absolutely depends on such differentiation. Isn't that silly? Let's divide the room just so we can argue about who gets which side. Have philosophers gotten so bored that they're resorting to such?

[Fanman]

Pris,

Disagree with the above or my conclusion in the syllogism?

I agree that your syllogism is based upon your reasoning, but I don't agree with the conclusion of your syllogism or the premises it proposes. I don't know if God exists, so I wouldn't claim that God's existence is an impossibility, certainly not based upon the premise of “perfection”. From your perspective God doesn't exist, so you are effectively claiming to have proven a negative.

[Prismatic567]

To understand the whole, one must understand the parts and their differences and how they are interdependent within the system.
Note for example Yin-Yang within the Tao, one must know understand the principles of each element. You can insist there is no difference between Yin and Yang.
It is the same Kant to differentiate between a priori and a posteriori and explain how they are interdependent with each other to enable knowledge to emerge. You have to read up Kant to understand [not necessary agree] before you critique his views.

Yin is the north, dark side of the mountain while yang is the south, sunny side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang#Meanings

The only way I can see a priori being a requirement for posteriori is if a priori engenders the subject (brain) through evolution which then enables the subject to view the object (empiricism, deduction). But the way Kant defines it makes no sense to me since he divides the object (empiricism, deduction) into 2 parts for no obvious reason other than to complicate matters.

So it would seem that Kant has ignored yin, then proceeded to divide yang into two parts and achieved notoriety for it, though not for his blunder.

I tried Kant once and it was so incredibly boring that I gave up on it. It reminds me of sitting in a tree waiting for a deer to walk by. It's far easier to simply ask you

Nah..
Kant did not ignore Yin. Kant explored Yin and Yang in depth [note Kant's antinomy] then dig deep into the Tao and conclude they are all illusory albeit can be useful psychologically.

Yes but not all brains can realize the a priori that other brains can which presents yet another slippery slope. Can a lizard grasp the concept of a quantity? But on the other hand plants can apparently perform complex calculations that estimate the amount of sugar that needs to be stored for the night until the sun is expected to rise the next morning. https://grist.org/living/plants-can-do-math/

Obviously a computer doesn't perform magic in computation, but is a series of switches that operate in a deterministic fashion like dominoes falling against each other. Likewise viewing a tree is a similar deterministic process of chemistry and is absolutely no different than the mathematical calculations performed by plants.
The only way to have a REAL distinction between a priori and posteriori is to conjure magic and insist there is some aspect of humanity that is not native to this universe, otherwise it's all chemical bubblings and happenings within a continuum with no discontinuities.

Our concern here is with humans not lizards.

Well then define humans. When did the first human come about? Evolution is a smooth continuous transition and there was never a point where we could say here is a human which came from this non-human. It's just like asking what was the day when you became old? It's another slippery slope since we can trace our ancestry back to a protoplasm globule and in fact, if you, for instance, believe the big bang, then we could say that we are the big bang still coming on. That singularity is grandpa.

Yes we can trace humans back to the first singled-cell living things. But this is off topic to the earlier point.

To understand why humans accept seeming blindly why 1 + 1 = 2 we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.

What if 1+1=10? (binary) What if 1+1=1? (1 lump of clay added to another lump is 1 lump of clay.) And if 1+1=2 is so easy to understand, then which animals understand it and which do not? Does a gazelle realize there are 2 lions chasing it rather than 1? If so, is that empiricism or deduction?

If you throw a box of toothpicks on the floor and Rainman instantly knows the quantity of toothpicks, is it by empiricism or deduction? When idiot savants multiply ridiculously large numbers together in their heads, is it by empiricism or deduction? The only reason I know 7x7=49 is that I memorized it because I had to write it down a bazillion times in 3rd grade. To my knowledge, I have never deduced 7x7.

For a long time, humanity had no concept of zero because you can't have zero cows. If you have no cows, there is no need to write it down. https://www.livescience.com/27853-who-i ... -zero.html So is 1-1=0 a priori or not? After all, there are currently zero pink elephants chasing me.

1 + 1 = 2 is a priori based on the decimal system and it is only applicable to humans only.
From the a posteriori perspective 1 + 1 = whatever, based on a qualified criteria. This is why you refer to binary system, 1 lump of clay, whatever Rainman knows, etc.
So can we ground the various answers given?
The solution is to differentiate a priori and a posteriori.

To understand and resolve Hume's Problem of Induction, we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
There are many other philosophical issues that require the differentiation between a priori and a posteriori.

Yes, in order to have a debate about what forms life, we need to have a differentiation between life and nonlife because the debate absolutely depends on such differentiation. Isn't that silly? Let's divide the room just so we can argue about who gets which side. Have philosophers gotten so bored that they're resorting to such?

As I had mentioned before we need to complement dualism with monism without being dogmatic with one side only.
Note dualism is critical for survival, i.e. need to differentiate between enemy and non-enemy, threat or no-threat, poisonous and non-poisonous, good or evil and the likes. What is critical is one should not be dogmatic with one side only but see the opposites within the bigger picture [holism].

Btw, are you familiar with the Buddhist's Two-Truths and Tetralemma [Four Truths*]?
* not the Four Noble Truths.

[Prismatic567]

Pris,

Disagree with the above or my conclusion in the syllogism?

I agree that your syllogism is based upon your reasoning, but I don't agree with the conclusion of your syllogism or the premises it proposes. I don't know if God exists, so I wouldn't claim that God's existence is an impossibility, certainly not based upon the premise of “perfection”. From your perspective God doesn't exist, so you are effectively claiming to have proven a negative.

I am not proving a negative.
I am not proving 'God does not exist.'

'God is an impossibility' meant one cannot even raise the question of whether 'God exists or not?' i.e. moot and a non-starter.
When it is moot and a non-starter, there is no need for me to prove 'God does not exist' at all.

I have mentioned the process of gaining knowledge where one must start with reasoning and abducting a reasonable hypothesis to be proven and justified so that it [if proven] can be accepted as a theory [e.g. speculated theory like the Big Bang] or knowledge if JTB [e.g. Oxygen is a product of photosynthesis].

'God is an impossibility' [via reason] meant the question of God is not feasible at all to qualify even as a hypothesis [via abductive reasoning] within empirical-rational reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

This is a case of higher-reasoning 'killing' crude-reasoning.
Abductive reason is a form of crude-reasoning and 'the question of God' cannot even pass this stage of crude-reasoning.

The only basis how and why 'the question of God [illusory]' can arise is due to psychological compulsion within the brain/mind of theists.

[Fanman]

Pris,

I am not proving a negative.
I am not proving 'God does not exist.'

Hmm … If God doesn't exist, then proving that it is impossible for God to exist is proving a negative. Because, in proving that it is impossible for God to exist, you would also be proving that God does not exist - it is implied. I don't understand why you wouldn't see that? So if you had proven that it is impossible for God exist, by definition you would have also proven that God does not exist a priori. Viz, you would have proven a negative.

'God is an impossibility' meant one cannot even raise the question of whether 'God exists or not?' i.e. moot and a non-starter.
When it is moot and a non-starter, there is no need for me to prove 'God does not exist' at all.

IMV, you haven't shown that God is an impossibility. I've argued why I think that you haven't and you've argued why you think that you have. If we continue it will become circular, so I think this is a good time to close our discussion on this matter. I'm not going to debate it any more (if I can resist ).

This is a case of higher-reasoning 'killing' crude-reasoning.
Abductive reason is a form of crude-reasoning and 'the question of God' cannot even pass this stage of crude-reasoning.

So you do genuinely believe that anyone who believes that there's a possibility that God exists is using “crude reasoning” whilst you, by claiming that it is impossible for God to exist are using “higher refined reason” or “higher order thinking” because of the mode of reasoning that leads to each of the diametrically opposed conclusions. That is very interesting.

The only basis how and why 'the question of God [illusory]' can arise is due to psychological compulsion within the brain/mind of theists.

There's no need to continually restate your points in a discussion. I understood that is the conclusion you've arrived at the 1st time you stated it.

Regardless, it has certainly been an interesting discussion. Thanks for your time.

[Arcturus Descending]

Phyllo,

There is a difference between what people want and what there is.

Precisely and so people tend to build up their own personal matrixes, a matter of their own choice, despite what cannot be seen and despite how discombobulated our minds may be at the thought of this idea/ideal, except for those who DO live in the matrix.

A god may exist Who does not have the characteristics that have been attributed to Him/Her/It by theists.

I can agree with this in part. This is a deist's thinking and I find it to be more rational than that of the theist's thinking; to wit, that the God who exists (for lack of a better word) is lovingly aware, compassionate, empathetic, ad continuum...

Perhaps the very first thing that needs to be done is to drop the gender identity.
We do this even with non-gender things, like ships, cars, ad continuum.
I suppose that it may be because we need to sense or to have some form of intimate relationship with a God or even with our things (the reason we are so *attached* to them) although we can never really know if our so-called relationship with a personal God is "real" except through our choice to make it so. (the matrix again),
We are all basically sucklings in some form or other.

Prismatic does not show that such a God does not exist.

Perhaps the problem is with the word "God". Maybe that too ought to be dropped though I have no idea what to put in its stead.

Your keyword is "may". Can we prove, really, that the theists or the deists or the atheists are correct or incorrect?
I do not think so in light of all of the variables that can be seen.

I think that all we can say is "maybe" or "perhaps" or "possibly". But what do we do? We simplify it by making a judgment call, the one which best suits our purposes/agendas and allows us a sense of security.
A child on her way to school is run down by a drunkard. The child dies but the drunkard lives.

Too many unanswered questions.

A bit of serendipity, a bit of synchronicity, a bit of magic in the world.
As I said, we are all sucklings, in some form or other.

Personally, I do not think that we will ever get to the bottom of the God question.

[Serendipper]

Nah..
Kant did not ignore Yin. Kant explored Yin and Yang in depth [note Kant's antinomy] then dig deep into the Tao and conclude they are all illusory albeit can be useful psychologically.

I think he ignored yin but wasn't aware that he had. Just because he studied yin and yang doesn't mean he missed seeing yin (building of the brain) and yang (brain as subject that views object which is empiricism and deduction).

Just to reiterate:

Yin = all of evolution from big bang until your brain becomes a subject capable of observing or deducing anything.
Yang= brain is subject capable of observing the evolution that engendered it.

Instead of seeing that, Kant cut yang in half then called one half yin and the other yang (empiricism and deduction) while being oblivious to the fact of yin or evolution (for obvious reasons since it hadn't been theorized yet since Darwin was born 5 years after Kant died).

Yes we can trace humans back to the first singled-cell living things. But this is off topic to the earlier point.

I think it's perfectly relevant and necessary.

1 + 1 = 2 is a priori based on the decimal system and it is only applicable to humans only.

Again I must insist that you define "human". Reify, man, reify! It's a little ironic that I am the one claiming there is no such thing as a human and you are the one drawing divisions to produce "things" when there are no things lol. Isn't that funny?

From the a posteriori perspective 1 + 1 = whatever, based on a qualified criteria. This is why you refer to binary system, 1 lump of clay, whatever Rainman knows, etc.
So can we ground the various answers given?
The solution is to differentiate a priori and a posteriori.

Now I see... you're reifying! You're drawing lines between 1+1=10 and 1+1=2 and claiming one is innate and the other isn't. You're dividing a continuum and claiming one is a thing and the other is a thing distinct from the other thing.

As I had mentioned before we need to complement dualism with monism without being dogmatic with one side only.

Dualism says heads and tails whereas monism says there is just the coin, but there must also be a distinction between what is coin and what is not, so we're back to dualism. You cannot have an experience without a nonexperience to contrast it and give it meaning.

There is value to recognizing that there is no differentiation between yin and yang and there is value to recognizing that there is; we don't need to make a religion out of one or the other. Practice the Bruce Lee style of no style... the Jeet Kune Do of philosophy. I'm not a dualist nor a nondualist because I can go both ways. Both are true and not true

Note dualism is critical for survival,

What do you mean by survival? As opposed to not-survival? lol! There is no way out of dualism.

What is critical is one should not be dogmatic with one side only but see the opposites within the bigger picture [holism].

Dogamtism (aka clinging to styles) is bad.

Btw, are you familiar with the Buddhist's Two-Truths and Tetralemma [Four Truths*]?
* not the Four Noble Truths.

Not sure about the two truths.

[Prismatic567]

Pris,

I am not proving a negative.
I am not proving 'God does not exist.'

Hmm … If God doesn't exist, then proving that it is impossible for God to exist is proving a negative. Because, in proving that it is impossible for God to exist, you would also be proving that God does not exist - it is implied. I don't understand why you wouldn't see that? So if you had proven that it is impossible for God exist, by definition you would have also proven that God does not exist a priori. Viz, you would have proven a negative.

The default is one cannot prove a negative.
So my approach is, in the case of 'God exists' [positive not negative claim] one cannot even start to raise a hypothesis for such a positive claim, i.e. moot, a non-starter.

'God is an impossibility' meant one cannot even raise the question of whether 'God exists or not?' i.e. moot and a non-starter.
When it is moot and a non-starter, there is no need for me to prove 'God does not exist' at all.

IMV, you haven't shown that God is an impossibility. I've argued why I think that you haven't and you've argued why you think that you have. If we continue it will become circular, so I think this is a good time to close our discussion on this matter. I'm not going to debate it any more (if I can resist ).

You argued about the term 'perfection' which I have countered and stated the critical word is 'absolute' or to emphasize "absolutely absolute" to differentiate from relative absolutes like absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.
Because God has to the most unique to theists, we have to use the extreme most terms to differentiate God from humans and other living entities.

This is a case of higher-reasoning 'killing' crude-reasoning.
Abductive reason is a form of crude-reasoning and 'the question of God' cannot even pass this stage of crude-reasoning.

So you do genuinely believe that anyone who believes that there's a possibility that God exists is using “crude reasoning” whilst you, by claiming that it is impossible for God to exist are using “higher refined reason” or “higher order thinking” because of the mode of reasoning that leads to each of the diametrically opposed conclusions. That is very interesting.

I have given my explanation between what is "crude reasoning" and "higher refined reasoning." E.g. note the higher refined reasoning of Kant, Hume, Nietzche, Heidegger, and the likes in comparison with the "crude reasoning" of the lay philosopher and the common people.

The only basis how and why 'the question of God [illusory]' can arise is due to psychological compulsion within the brain/mind of theists.

There's no need to continually restate your points in a discussion. I understood that is the conclusion you've arrived at the 1st time you stated it.

Regardless, it has certainly been an interesting discussion. Thanks for your time.

It is for general sake.
The "psychological" point do not sink in with most and many theists.

[Fanman]

Pris,

The default is one cannot prove a negative.
So my approach is, in the case of 'God exists' [positive not negative claim] one cannot even start to raise a hypothesis for such a positive claim, i.e. moot, a non-starter.

That doesn't seem to follow. If you proved that it is impossible for God to exist, then by default God never existed, a priori. It doesn't matter about your “approach” because it doesn't alter the fact. Putting the default aside for the moment, the problem is that you're making a positive claim about something which has not (or cannot) be proven either way, thus it is a possibility that God doesn't exist. So factually speaking, if God does not exist, you can't really avoid that your argument/syllogism would be proving a negative.

You argued about the term 'perfection' which I have countered and stated the critical word is 'absolute' or to emphasize "absolutely absolute" to differentiate from relative absolutes like absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.
Because God has to the most unique to theists, we have to use the extreme most terms to differentiate God from humans and other living entities.

That's fair enough. IMV, God is a thing amongst other things, so I don't see the need to differentiate or use language in a different way when describing it's proposed attributes. There's is no need discuss God from the theist's reified perspective if we are trying to establish the facts via reason (a priori). Using extreme terms won't alter the conclusion and we should remain within the correct/accepted use of language in order to make understandable points.

I have given my explanation between what is "crude reasoning" and "higher refined reasoning." E.g. note the higher refined reasoning of Kant, Hume, Nietzche, Heidegger, and the likes in comparison with the "crude reasoning" of the lay philosopher and the common people.

The problem is that when you attribute “crude reasoning” to an entire subset of people, it evidently means that you have a preconceived notion of being superior to them because you claim to use “higher refined reason”. You then appeal the reasoning of past notable/famous philosophers to reinforce that opinion. Therefore substantiating your view (to yourself) that you are using higher refined reasoning and that theist's reasoning is crude. It is very problematic and offensive.

It is for general sake.
The "psychological" point do not sink in with most and many theists.

Doesn't sink in? Why should theists (or anyone) accept your speculative claims on this issue? You can't force people to be convinced. Perhaps it needs to sink in with you that they just don't agree with you and are entitled not to.

[Prismatic567]

Pris,

The default is one cannot prove a negative.
So my approach is, in the case of 'God exists' [positive not negative claim] one cannot even start to raise a hypothesis for such a positive claim, i.e. moot, a non-starter.

That doesn't seem to follow. If you proved that it is impossible for God to exist, then by default God never existed, a priori. It doesn't matter about your “approach” because it doesn't alter the fact. Putting the default aside for the moment, the problem is that you're making a positive claim about something which has not (or cannot) be proven either way, thus it is a possibility that God doesn't exist. So factually speaking, if God does not exist, you can't really avoid that your argument/syllogism would be proving a negative.

If 'you' want to view it that way, that is your discretion.
What I am more concern is the result, i.e. the question of 'God exists' cannot be raised as a hypothesis at all.

You argued about the term 'perfection' which I have countered and stated the critical word is 'absolute' or to emphasize "absolutely absolute" to differentiate from relative absolutes like absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.
Because God has to the most unique to theists, we have to use the extreme most terms to differentiate God from humans and other living entities.

That's fair enough. IMV, God is a thing amongst other things, so I don't see the need to differentiate or use language in a different way when describing it's proposed attributes. There's is no need discuss God from the theist's reified perspective if we are trying to establish the facts via reason (a priori). Using extreme terms won't alter the conclusion and we should remain within the correct/accepted use of language in order to make understandable points.

God is a thing in the broadest sense.
To be precise the term 'God' is at most only an idea [philosophy] and in not even a concept. The idea of God when reified is an illusion.
The only valid perspective of God is from the theists' perspective and it is theists who uplift God to its highest possible qualities of an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God which is a very critical point for my argument.
My argument do not work if God has only relative perfection.

I have given my explanation between what is "crude reasoning" and "higher refined reasoning." E.g. note the higher refined reasoning of Kant, Hume, Nietzche, Heidegger, and the likes in comparison with the "crude reasoning" of the lay philosopher and the common people.

The problem is that when you attribute “crude reasoning” to an entire subset of people, it evidently means that you have a preconceived notion of being superior to them because you claim to use “higher refined reason”. You then appeal the reasoning of past notable/famous philosophers to reinforce that opinion. Therefore substantiating your view (to yourself) that you are using higher refined reasoning and that theist's reasoning is crude. It is very problematic and offensive.

Isn't it true the notable philosophers I mentioned were more refined thinkers than the lay philosophers?

Note the most theists can come up with to support their claim of God is 'faith' which is obviously inferior to critical thinking. This is so evident and factual.

1.One time 99% of people thought 'the Earth is flat' and the Sun orbits round the Earth then. It is true this majority of people were offended if anyone were to counter their views and some critiques of the 'wrong' view were killed.

Anyone who feel offended at present if they are told their thinking 'God exists' is based on crude reasoning is the same as those above in 1. above.

It is for general sake.
The "psychological" point do not sink in with most and many theists.

Doesn't sink in? Why should theists (or anyone) accept your speculative claims on this issue? You can't force people to be convinced. Perhaps it needs to sink in with you that they just don't agree with you and are entitled not to.

I don't expect most theists to agree with me on this due to strong confirmation bias.
I have nevertheless given evidence and explain how the belief in a God is driven by psychology. Buddhism, and others has also recognized this fact and deal with the underlying existential crisis psychologically.

[Fanman]

Pris,

If 'you' want to view it that way, that is your discretion.
What I am more concern is the result, i.e. the question of 'God exists' cannot be raised as a hypothesis at all.

From which it follows that:

1. God does not exist.
2. That God never existed.
3. That God cannot exist.
4. That you've proven that.
5. That you've proven the negative.

I find this to be a relatively simple logical deduction based upon what you've claimed.

Isn't it true the notable philosophers I mentioned were more refined thinkers than the lay philosophers?

I'm not sure how to interpret the term “refined” in the sense of thinking. I think that the notable philosophers were perhaps more intelligent and/or more educated than lay philosophers, which led to them having greater insights. But I wouldn't claim that their thinking is more "refined".

Note the most theists can come up with to support their claim of God is 'faith' which is obviously inferior to critical thinking. This is so evident and factual.

I don't know about that? Granted they are different modes of thinking and can lead to completely different conclusions about the same subject, but I don't think that faith is “inferior” to critical thinking.

1.One time 99% of people thought 'the Earth is flat' and the Sun orbits round the Earth then. It is true this majority of people were offended if anyone were to counter their views and some critiques of the 'wrong' view were killed.

Anyone who feel offended at present if they are told their thinking 'God exists' is based on crude reasoning is the same as those above in 1. above.

That is a generalisation. In order for this claim to have any veracity, it would have to be shown that God does not exist. And even if it were to be shown that God doesn't exist, it doesn't as a rule mean that any and all types of reasoning which posited the existence of God were “crude”, that is your value judgement; I think there are sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. The fact that people arrive at incorrect conclusions, does not necessarily mean that their reasoning was "crude". The problem I see, is that you seem to think that wrong = “crude” and right = “refined”, but all types of reasoning can arrive at both correct and incorrect conclusions. There is no infallible person, and therefore no infallible (perfect) type of reasoning. No matter how intelligent or educated a person is, whether they're a theist, agnostic or atheist, they can be wrong.

I don't expect most theists to agree with me on this due to strong confirmation bias.
I have nevertheless given evidence and explain how the belief in a God is driven by psychology. Buddhism, and others has also recognized this fact and deal with the underlying existential crisis psychologically.

Fact? It is at best an educated guess. Theists don't need to be exhibiting confirmation bias to disagree with your theory. They have every right to reject your conclusion on the basis of choice.

[phyllo]

I don't know about that? Granted they are different modes of thinking and can lead to completely different conclusions about the same subject, but I don't think that faith is “inferior” to critical thinking.

Who says that theists don't use critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion?

Some very clever, educated and able theists have made arguments for the existence of God. Theists are not all dumb bumpkins.

[Fanman]

phyllo,

Who says that theists don't use critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion? 

Some very clever, educated and able theists have made arguments for the existence of God. Theists are not all dumb bumpkins.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[Prismatic567]

Isn't it true the notable philosophers I mentioned were more refined thinkers than the lay philosophers?

I'm not sure how to interpret the term “refined” in the sense of thinking. I think that the notable philosophers were perhaps more intelligent and/or more educated than lay philosophers, which led to them having greater insights. But I wouldn't claim that their thinking is more "refined".

refine = make minor changes so as to improve or clarify (a theory or method).

I have given examples, i.e.
Theists rely fundamentally with the instinctual principles of causation, i.e. for every effect there must be a cause and apply that to jump to the conclusion God is the ultimate creator of ALL there is. Theists believe that something cannot come from nothing.
Hume applied refined thinking, i.e. that cause and effect is psychological [customs, habits and constant conjunction] rather than deductive.

A person can be very intelligent, e.g. Einstein who was a deist. For the consideration of the ultimate in life his intelligence could not do anything to overcome the psychological compulsion thus he is compelled by his primal instincts of cause and effect.

Note the most theists can come up with to support their claim of God is 'faith' which is obviously inferior to critical thinking. This is so evident and factual.

I don't know about that? Granted they are different modes of thinking and can lead to completely different conclusions about the same subject, but I don't think that faith is “inferior” to critical thinking.

I thought this is very evident, note knowledge in Science which is not based mainly on faith [90%]. One cannot rely on faith in a court to judge a person.

1.One time 99% of people thought 'the Earth is flat' and the Sun orbits round the Earth then. It is true this majority of people were offended if anyone were to counter their views and some critiques of the 'wrong' view were killed.

Anyone who feel offended at present if they are told their thinking 'God exists' is based on crude reasoning is the same as those above in 1. above.

That is a generalisation. In order for this claim to have any veracity, it would have to be shown that God does not exist. And even if it were to be shown that God doesn't exist, it doesn't as a rule mean that any and all types of reasoning which posited the existence of God were “crude”, that is your value judgement; I think there are sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. The fact that people arrive at incorrect conclusions, does not necessarily mean that their reasoning was "crude". The problem I see, is that you seem to think that wrong = “crude” and right = “refined”, but all types of reasoning can arrive at both correct and incorrect conclusions. There is no infallible person, and therefore no infallible (perfect) type of reasoning. No matter how intelligent or educated a person is, whether they're a theist, agnostic or atheist, they can be wrong.

We are referring to the claim 'God exists' which is a very primal psychological drive.
Note the most intelligent people can fall prey to lack of impulse controls and end up as murderers, rapists, serial killers, scammers, and commit the full range of evils.
Thus most intelligent theists lack the impulse controls to deal with the primal instinctual impulses of the existential angst - aka the zombie parasites and thus end up with being a theist resulting from crude reasoning on the final decision stage.

I don't expect most theists to agree with me on this due to strong confirmation bias.
I have nevertheless given evidence and explain how the belief in a God is driven by psychology. Buddhism, and others has also recognized this fact and deal with the underlying existential crisis psychologically.

Fact? It is at best an educated guess. Theists don't need to be exhibiting confirmation bias to disagree with your theory. They have every right to reject your conclusion on the basis of choice.

That "Buddhism, and others has also recognized this fact and deal with the underlying existential crisis psychologically" is not an educated guess. It is empirically evident from the core principles and practices of Buddhism.

Theists cling to their theistic beliefs to ensure [mostly subconsciously] psychological security.
My critique of theism [subliminally] shakes the foundation of their beliefs, thus theists have to confirm their beliefs are "true" even if my arguments are sound - that is why they need such confirmation bias to ensure their psychological security bubble do not burst and explode.

[Prismatic567]

I don't know about that? Granted they are different modes of thinking and can lead to completely different conclusions about the same subject, but I don't think that faith is “inferior” to critical thinking.

Who says that theists don't use critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion?

Some very clever, educated and able theists have made arguments for the existence of God. Theists are not all dumb bumpkins.

Note my explanation above.
Theists [Plantinga, St. Anselm, Descartes, and the likes] may use all sort of fanciful presentations and arguments but the final decision re God exists or not is driven by crude reasoning related to 'cause and effect' as subliminally compelled by an existential crisis within.

Note Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God via proofs because all proofs will be inherently infected with the equivocation virus.

[Fanman]

Pris,

refine = make minor changes so as to improve or clarify (a theory or method).

I have given examples, i.e.
Theists rely fundamentally with the instinctual principles of causation, i.e. for every effect there must be a cause and apply that to jump to the conclusion God is the ultimate creator of ALL there is. Theists believe that something cannot come from nothing.
Hume applied refined thinking, i.e. that cause and effect is psychological [customs, habits and constant conjunction] rather than deductive.

A person can be very intelligent, e.g. Einstein who was a deist. For the consideration of the ultimate in life his intelligence could not do anything to overcome the psychological compulsion thus he is compelled by his primal instincts of cause and effect.

I generally understand what "refined" means, but it is not a term that I've seen applied to “thinking” before. I suppose you can squeeze it into that context, but saying that one method of thinking is refined and another is crude seems arbitrary. I find what you're claiming to be speculative. Whilst we can claim that all theists believe that God exists, I think its difficult (or perhaps impossible) to know the exact manner of reasoning in which all theists conclude that God exists, because insight has its limitations.

You've claimed that problem solving is your forte, but how can you problem solve effectively without using cause and effect reasoning or root cause analysis?

I thought this is very evident, note knowledge in Science which is not based mainly on faith [90%]. One cannot rely on faith in a court to judge a person.

I don't think it follows that, because you can't use faith to judge a person in court, that faith is inferior to critical thinking. You have to apply different modes of thinking in different situations. Faith, is not appropriate to use in terms of judging someone in court, but it is appropriate concerning having religious beliefs. I don't understand why you are thinking in terms of inferior and superior?

We are referring to the claim 'God exists' which is a very primal psychological drive.
Note the most intelligent people can fall prey to lack of impulse controls and end up as murderers, rapists, serial killers, scammers, and commit the full range of evils.
Thus most intelligent theists lack the impulse controls to deal with the primal instinctual impulses of the existential angst - aka the zombie parasites and thus end up with being a theist resulting from crude reasoning on the final decision stage.

I find this to be conjecture. I don't have any clue how you have arrived at these conclusions, perhaps you could explain?

That "Buddhism, and others has also recognized this fact and deal with the underlying existential crisis psychologically" is not an educated guess. It is empirically evident from the core principles and practices of Buddhism.

IMV, your claims re existential crisis are speculative, not facts. That Buddhism attempts to deal with existential crisis, does not mean that the root cause of all religious belief is existential crisis.

Theists cling to their theistic beliefs to ensure [mostly subconsciously] psychological security. 
My critique of theism [subliminally] shakes the foundation of their beliefs, thus theists have to confirm their beliefs are "true" even if my arguments are sound - that is why they need such confirmation bias to ensure their psychological security bubble do not burst and explode.

Whilst I agree that theistic beliefs provide a degree of security for believers, I don't agree that the security is “mostly subconscious” how could I possibly know that? Why are you claiming to have knowledge and insight into the subconscious mind, do you have any qualifications or training in psychology or psychiatry? What you're claiming is very speculative, how do you know the effect that your “critique” has upon theists? How would you know that it “shakes the foundation of their beliefs” or that theists need “such confirmation bias”? These ideas don't seem cogent to me, why do you think that they are?

[phyllo]

Note my explanation above.
Theists [Plantinga, St. Anselm, Descartes, and the likes] may use all sort of fanciful presentations and arguments but the final decision re God exists or not is driven by crude reasoning related to 'cause and effect' as subliminally compelled by an existential crisis within.

Yes, I am aware of your position.

I was questioning Fanman because it seemed like he had drunk the Kool-Aid.

Note Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God via proofs because all proofs will be inherently infected with the equivocation virus.

Sure, Kant is without flaw and perfect.

"equivocation virus".

[Karpel Tunnel]

Whilst I agree that theistic beliefs provide a degree of security for believers, I don't agree that the security is “mostly subconscious” how could I possibly know that? Why are you claiming to have knowledge and insight into the subconscious mind, do you have any qualifications or training in psychology or psychiatry? What you're claiming is very speculative, how do you know the effect that your “critique” has upon theists? How would you know that it “shakes the foundation of their beliefs” or that theists need “such confirmation bias”? These ideas don't seem cogent to me, why do you think that they are?

Your first point is a solid one. Why does he get to make generalized psychic claims? A further problem with his position is he sees only reasoning as the root to grounded belief. Even in the West, where it is emphasized less and faith is often prioritized, religions offer immersion in experiences, and representatives would, in fact, suggest that one must build up an empirical relationship and via experience develop beliefs. In the East this is just a given. You don't come to believe in a certain Hindu deity through argument - though they certainly do have theological arguments - but rather through long term practices and the experience of the deity or deities. Most masters in any religion do not get new members through philosophical argument - though little quick ones may be interspersed. The idea is to build up, like a skill, a connection and set of experiences over LONG periods of time.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Sure, Kant is without flaw and perfect.

It is odd that he uses a theist when appealing to authority, Kant having problems with anthropomorphized descriptions of God, not thinking that beliefs in God were necessarily or even at all wrong or irrational.

"equivocation virus".

The equivocation virus would certainly eliminate the possibility of any proof of their being a self.

[Ierrellus]

It can be debated
That, since Kant was constipated,
Blockage shows
In his prose.
I mean who can suffer to dig for sense in a sentence that is over a page long? One critic said he read Kant
by placing fingers on certain points in the text and ran out of fingers.
Serendipper, you are not alone.

[Fanman]

Karpel Tunnel,

I don't know why Prismatic believes that he can psychoanalyse people, but he only seems to do so when others disagree with his claims. As if someone who disagrees with him has some kind of issue – read what you will into that perspective, I know that I do. I agree with what you say; in the West, with religions like Christianity, faith is certainly prioritised and appears to be the central theme or at least the aspect of the religion that preachers appeal to the most. I couldn't say much about Eastern religions, but the Christian God, in terms of the way sophisticated theists refer to it, for whom faith alone doesn't seem to be enough, do rely on logical arguments for God's existence. Experiences of God or those that relate to spirituality, in my experience act as a reinforcement of faith, giving theist's belief a degree of solidarity.

[Serendipper]

Prism seems to be gone. Is spectrum on the other site?

[Fanman]

Serendipper,

I haven't seen him post for a while here, or on the OPC. Maybe he's taking a break or busy. I think he'll be back sooner or later.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Karpel Tunnel,

I don't know why Prismatic believes that he can psychoanalyse people, but he only seems to do so when others disagree with his claims. As if someone who disagrees with him has some kind of issue – read what you will into that perspective, I know that I do. I agree with what you say; in the West, with religions like Christianity, faith is certainly prioritised and appears to be the central theme or at least the aspect of the religion that preachers appeal to the most. I couldn't say much about Eastern religions, but the Christian God, in terms of the way sophisticated theists refer to it, for whom faith alone doesn't seem to be enough, do rely on logical arguments for God's existence. Experiences of God or those that relate to spirituality, in my experience act as a reinforcement of faith, giving theist's belief a degree of solidarity.

Faith is prioritized in certain Christian talk. It is a buzzword that, from their perspective has high value, shows a kind of moral goodness. Fine. They are responsible, when they get in dialogue with atheists, for emphasizing this. Atheists for buying into the false dichotomy and framing the debate repeatedly that way, as if it fit Christians, let alone theists in general. If one listens to Christians in other contexts, especially people who have reinvigorated their religions, they talk about the presence of Jesus, the feeling of Jesus in their hearts, visions, the feeling of the Holy Spirit, a sense of grace, connections to God, hearing phrases, messages, connection in prayer and more. IOW empirical reasons for thinking they are experiencing a deity. Beyond that they also speak in functional terms: when I gave over my soul to Jesus, X happened. Often related to despair, drug addiction, life changing events, sometimes on internal changes, some including changes in the material world. When I pray, I later experience X. These types of experiences also vary wildly and they are also empirical, related to control. This is not even getting near phenomena like being taken over by the Holy Spirit or other more profound types of, often physically overwhelming experiences.
Of course atheists have their explanations for these experiences – and the implicit argument that these experiences they have never had should not be convincing, are categorized correctly by the atheists, and would not convince the atheists, despite the atheists not having had these experiences.
My point in all this that even though theists tend to wander towards the value of faith as the foundation, in fact in other contexts they tend to focus on, even when specifically explaining why they believe or why they believe so strongly, empirical phenomena.
This only get stronger when dealing with Christian mystics, including figures like Jesus, who have prolonged complicated empirical processes.
And in dialogue with priests and pastors, most of them will, especially in one on one situations, encourage long term disciplined approaches to an empirical connection to the divine via prayer, contemplation, ritual attendance, along with moral cleansing, etc. which is designed to make it easier to experience the divine. They do not say, simply, have more faith. The indicate that there are processes requiring intention and, really skill.
If we move out of Christianity eastward we get religions like Hinduisms, where the practices are absolutely empirical, faith is not focused on, and these practices are openly considered skills, often requiring lifetimes of practice – reincarnation itself, being something that is not simply taken on faith, but is remembered by practitioners.
Move into indigenous/shamanic religions and there is no clear separation between the divine and the mundane and all beliefs have empirical bases.
Again, of course, we know how atheists view these experiences. Implicitly and explicitly atheists tend to indicate that they base their beliefs on science (usually) and some other beliefs based on logical reasoning. But this is mythical. Just like everyone else, they must, given that they are fallible beings IN SITU, base beliefs on intuition/faith. They wake up and think their memory of what is true and how they reached their conclusions about, say women and men, or politics, or their own epistemological processes or their memories (of learning, deciding) are correct. In the process of deciding what is true intuition plays a huge role. We are not arguments on paper. We are creatures immersed in reality constructing. This does not mean I take a postmodern view of beliefs, that we cannot tell between them. I do think beliefs can be categorized in terms of levels of justification, but no one has claims to purity, all are working with various a priori, AND experience plays a huge role as does the intuitional ability of the experiencers. That is it all logic and empirical research for some is just BS. Scientists managed to not believe animals had emotions and cognition up into the 70s, for example.
I’ve given Prism, elsewhere, scientific research giving other reasons than he does for why theists believe. This does not change is certainty despite not having any research at all.
But a more important issue is the implicit mis-framing of the issue.
It is as if the theist chooses to be theist based on fear than false reasoning.
When in fact most theists are theists from childhood and reasoning and choice come later, if they do.
The real question for most theists is whether to stop believing in God when faced with atheists. Here again to say it is simply faith and bad reasoning, or unwillingness to face fears is confused.
For most theists it seems to be working, their complex set of behaviors and ideas- the social portions of religion, the relations with the religious leaders, their practices and beliefs. What they need to be shown is that it is not working or there is confirmation bias and so on. I am not saying that belief in God should be the default, that the onus is on atheists, but in practical terms for the theist, this is the case. They have been immersed for a long time. They experience it as working. Of course, they need to be shifted off this, by their own curiosity or dissatisfaction or by arguments from atheists, so it is a default for them and to say it is based on fear is confused, though, sure fear could certainly be in there somewhere and all of us are threatened when our paradigms are challenged well enough to make it seem possible we will have to give them up or modify them fundamentally.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Prism seems to be gone. Is spectrum on the other site?

what other site?