God is an Impossibility

[Prismatic567]

Belief, I think is a key to your argument. It lacks proof in the same way any other belief can be held.

Yes, belief is a key to my argument, but it is based on rationally justified belief, not a highly subjective belief.

Belief comes in a continuum from;

1. Opinion - free flowing very loose subjective views
2. Belief - beliefs ranging from low personal convictions to higher justified-beliefs.
3. Knowledge - justified true beliefs [JTB] as in Science, etc.

My argument is based on rationally justified beliefs, i.e. logical arguments.

If you claim and insist God exists as real, where is your evidence and justification to prove your claim.

We spoke earlier of an absolute certainty which can not be reached.

Note my argument is not of an absolute certainty which cannot be reached, it is that there is no absolute-certainty to be reached.
E.g. the analogy of a square-circle, it is a non-starter. No matter what, it is not a thing which can not be reached. There is no square-circle to be reached for a start.

Similarly, God is an impossibility, the question whether God exists or not is moot, i.e. a non-starter.

As stated, I do not claim to 'know' what is absolutely real.
Whatever is real is always relative to a Framework, e.g. the Scientific Framework and Method, which is most objective but yet relative and uncertain.
As stated, we need the higher tools of Philosophy, i.e. logic, rationality, wisdom, critical thinking, etc. to exhaust as much uncertainties as possible.

Yet these uncertainties remain. There seems a required reflexivity in the statement as well. You can not claim to 'know' what is absolutely unreal either. Therefore what you hold is a belief that god is an impossibility.

What is absolutely unreal is absolutely falsehood, why we should be bother with that.

There are loads of possible unknowns.
But what is possible unknowns which can be real must be empirically justified, i.e. has empirical elements.
I can predict unicorns [horses with one single horn on the head] exists somewhere in a planet > one light year away in the universe. This is not an impossibility to be real because all the elements in the above statement are empirically laden which can be empirically justified if the empirical evidence is brought forth.

If one insist one's God is a monkey existing more than one light years away - creating the universe - then I can agree such a monkey-God is possible to be real. All you need is to bring that 'monkey' for empirical verification. This is possible in theory but not probable in reality.

But, the-has-to-be ultimate God is a thought and idea that has no possibility of any empirical attribute [as defined] thus an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.

[Aegean]

The word 'god' can be defined to be impossible, or to be possible.

The ancients defined 'god', theos, as natural force...so, for them, the word has meaning that they could experience.
Moderns, infested by Abrahamism, defined god as an absolute. They idealized and mystified the word, to ensure the manipulation and exploitation of morons throughout the ages.
They defined the word out of existence - beyond space/time.

You can define words like morality, value, love, in ways that makes them impossible - supernatural, ideological. Then morons can spend a lifetime looking for what does not exist, the way they've defined it.

[felix dakat]

I am an atheist. I claim no such thing. I simply argue your claim that a god does not exist as real. I don't personally have a god. I have questions about the "here" of here and don't have an answer for them. The god you argue against does not answer them for me. Whether there is a god that can, remains to be evidenced. I agree with Felix in the regard that you have a fairly limited definition of what a god might be. A particle or a wave, Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity?

Don't get me wrong. Looking at the question relatively is a sound pragmatic process, but to think you've crossed into absolutes, is a mistake of a lack of imagination. I would encourage you to practice the latter in equal proportion to the former.

I have covered all variations in the definition of God.

One of the ultimate attribute of God is as 'absolute' normally with capital 'A' to differentiate from what is generally absolute;

The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense. It can include or overlap with meanings implied by other concepts such as infinite, totality, and perfection.
In Christian theology, the Absolute is conceived as being synonymous with or an essential attribute of God, and it characterizes other natures of God such as His love, truth, wisdom, existence (omnipresence), knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), and others.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... philosophy)

If you are still doubtful, just google 'Absolute' & 'God'.

All the so-called divine attributes are windows into infinity. Infinity is not knowable. It literally means "not finite". It is defined analogically by what it is not. So with all the other attributes. Omnipotence. We know what finite power is. Infinite power is not that. And so on with omniscience, perfection, omnipresence, etc. Now if you claim infinity is impossible, I ask YOU to prove it. Cuz, until you do, I can't imagine it.

[felix dakat]

The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.

1And so after thousands of years of theists an idea is introduced by some philosophers about a mathematically perfect God, and suddenly no theist would accept anything else, even though they had before and some still do. So, the above paragraph contains its own refutation since before these guys theists conceived of God as not absolutely perfect - which can be seen in the myths and descriptions of God in a wide variety of cultures, including the OT where a clearly not perfect God - who gets cranky, who makes bets with the Devil, who sends angels down to destroy things he has made...and so on...iow having a very human-like temperment and not seeming to have expected certain outcomes since they piss him off.

2Of course people will say God is perfect, because they think of God as so beyond us God might as well be perfect. But humans have a long history of fallible very humanlike deities.

3Even Jesus on the cross doubted his father, who is supposed to be himself. Either Jesus was not perfect, since he doubted God, or God is not perfect since he was Jesus doubting.

4The argument is also an argument ad populum. Most people believe God is absolutely perfect (mathematicall), therefore if there is a God, that God would have to be perfect like that, but such a God cannot exist.

5That is such an illogical argument, not just for the ad populum idea, but also because it is an argument based on poison fruit.

6The majority of theists believe God is X. Therefore if there was a God, God would have to be X. These people are wrong, there is no God. If they are wrong, then they are not a good source of information.

Further most people who believe in Darwinian evolution have all sorts of misconceptions about it. They don't understand the epigenetic phenomena are not quite Lamarkian. They think it means survival of the fittest. And so on.

Just because the majority of believers in X believe something that does not mean we get to use their version of the belief to test the belief.

Prismatic needs there to be as the only possible deity a mathematically perfect deity.

So he says that is the only possible one and then uses that to refute

theism

in general

7This is illogical on so many fronts it's like dealing with a teenager who thinks the constitution entails he doesn't have to listen to his parents about household rules.

And it has gone on for years, with P repeating the same ludicrous arguments where he will even tell theists what they are supposed to believe and then show how what they are supposed to believe is wrong - also using faulty deduction even with his poor foundation.

I will bet he has not had the slightest feedback IRL from someone with a real foundation in philosophy or comparative religion

but here he is with his proofs.

Snore.

For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

Point is the above and many beliefs handed down from millenniums and centuries ago were initiated on a wrong footing and are false.
While many beliefs like the above were corrected to their true nature, the belief of a God continued to be defended by theists up the present. At every turn of defense, theists come up with excuses and the final excuse has to be the ontological absolute perfect God.
1Note it is not a mathematical perfect God, but rather an absolute and perfect God based on crude reasoning.

No one to date has presented an convincing proofs God exists as a real thing while the evil and violence acts commanded by the 'real' God continue to be committed by a significant quantum of theists as a religious duty.

What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.

The above is a critical necessity to counter the extremely dangerous threat posed by theists who are inspired by their 'real' God to war against and kill non-believers where the extreme could be an extermination of the human species.
Such theists are not deterred by M.A.D, for them it is a win-win even if they exterminate the human species, since they are guaranteed the highest honor with eternal life in paradise regardless of what happened on Earth.

Like Fanman's, your above are merely noises and complains but without any argument of substance.

Prismatic567 Here is an example where you only superficially address one of a respondent's seven arguments, go off on a irrelevant tangent about your divine mission to save the world from theism( how's that going for you, by the way?) and dismiss the rest. Your response is not exactly conducive to a meaningful dialogue.

[Prismatic567]

The word 'god' can be defined to be impossible, or to be possible.

The ancients defined 'god', theos, as natural force...so, for them, the word has meaning that they could experience.

This is not an issue.
For what is 'natural' that is empirically laden, then it should be verifiable via scientific test, like gravity and the likes.

Moderns, infested by Abrahamism, defined god as an absolute. They idealized and mystified the word, to ensure the manipulation and exploitation of morons throughout the ages.
They defined the word out of existence - beyond space/time.

Actually all the mainstream theistic religions define their God as absolute.
They have to do that so that no other religion can claim a one-up position on each other's God. No theists would accept the possibility their God to be inferior to another.

Not on only they define their God as absolutely perfect but also real to the extent of the Abrahamic God had sent its commands in holy texts that believers must comply as a duty.
The consequences is the killing of >270 million non-Muslims by Islamic-Muslims merely because the non-Muslims do not agree and accept Islam as absolute.

Any rational and compassionate human being should be concerned with the above irrationality grounded on a God which is an illusion and impossibility.

You can define words like morality, value, love, in ways that makes them impossible - supernatural, ideological. Then morons can spend a lifetime looking for what does not exist, the way they've defined it.

Agree, that is the point of the OP.

[Prismatic567]

I am an atheist. I claim no such thing. I simply argue your claim that a god does not exist as real. I don't personally have a god. I have questions about the "here" of here and don't have an answer for them. The god you argue against does not answer them for me. Whether there is a god that can, remains to be evidenced. I agree with Felix in the regard that you have a fairly limited definition of what a god might be. A particle or a wave, Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity?

Don't get me wrong. Looking at the question relatively is a sound pragmatic process, but to think you've crossed into absolutes, is a mistake of a lack of imagination. I would encourage you to practice the latter in equal proportion to the former.

I have covered all variations in the definition of God.

One of the ultimate attribute of God is as 'absolute' normally with capital 'A' to differentiate from what is generally absolute;

The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense. It can include or overlap with meanings implied by other concepts such as infinite, totality, and perfection.
In Christian theology, the Absolute is conceived as being synonymous with or an essential attribute of God, and it characterizes other natures of God such as His love, truth, wisdom, existence (omnipresence), knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), and others.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... philosophy)

If you are still doubtful, just google 'Absolute' & 'God'.

All the so-called divine attributes are windows into infinity. Infinity is not knowable. It literally means "not finite". It is defined analogically by what it is not. So with all the other attributes. Omnipotence. We know what finite power is. Infinite power is not that. And so on with omniscience, perfection, omnipresence, etc. Now if you claim infinity is impossible, I ask YOU to prove it. Cuz, until you do, I can't imagine it.

If we shoot a missile from the space shuttle it will go on indefinitely, i.e. to infinity.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.
In this case, the empirical elements, the missile, time, space are related to this 'I don't know' thus is empirically possible if the evidence is provided.

When we say perfection that is infinite, i.e. till infinity.
Absolute-Perfect infinity is an oxymoron.
If there is absolute-perfection there is no need to attach infinity to it.
The other point is absolute-perfection per se is an impossibility, therefore attaching infinity to it make no difference.

I can use infinity for imperfection, i.e. infinite imperfection.

Thus infinite is a convenience of intellectual surrender.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.

[Aegean]

Actually all the mainstream theistic religions define their God as absolute.

Yes...and nihilism is absolutist.
The only place the absolute exists is in the mind.
That's why the mind is defied, and the body denied.
In the mind anything is possible. You can travel in time, simultaneously hold two contrary ideas, synthesize anything into a while.
For the nihilist the mind is the magic producer, projecting into the world everything ti is "lacking".

They have to do that so that no other religion can claim a one-up position on each other's God. No theists would accept the possibility their God to be inferior to another.

Nihilists deal in either/or - Binary, Dualisms.
1/0
Not degrees.

Agree, that is the point of the OP.

The more words, representing concepts, you ground in reality, the more you disarm these imbeciles.

Begin with 'love'. They 'love' love. They sing about it, constantly evoke the word, and yet they are the most love-less minds in the world.
They've idealized love out of existence, so nothing ever satisfies.

[Prismatic567]

The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.

1And so after thousands of years of theists an idea is introduced by some philosophers about a mathematically perfect God, and suddenly no theist would accept anything else, even though they had before and some still do. So, the above paragraph contains its own refutation since before these guys theists conceived of God as not absolutely perfect - which can be seen in the myths and descriptions of God in a wide variety of cultures, including the OT where a clearly not perfect God - who gets cranky, who makes bets with the Devil, who sends angels down to destroy things he has made...and so on...iow having a very human-like temperment and not seeming to have expected certain outcomes since they piss him off.

2Of course people will say God is perfect, because they think of God as so beyond us God might as well be perfect. But humans have a long history of fallible very humanlike deities.

3Even Jesus on the cross doubted his father, who is supposed to be himself. Either Jesus was not perfect, since he doubted God, or God is not perfect since he was Jesus doubting.

4The argument is also an argument ad populum. Most people believe God is absolutely perfect (mathematicall), therefore if there is a God, that God would have to be perfect like that, but such a God cannot exist.

5That is such an illogical argument, not just for the ad populum idea, but also because it is an argument based on poison fruit.

6The majority of theists believe God is X. Therefore if there was a God, God would have to be X. These people are wrong, there is no God. If they are wrong, then they are not a good source of information.

Further most people who believe in Darwinian evolution have all sorts of misconceptions about it. They don't understand the epigenetic phenomena are not quite Lamarkian. They think it means survival of the fittest. And so on.

Just because the majority of believers in X believe something that does not mean we get to use their version of the belief to test the belief.

Prismatic needs there to be as the only possible deity a mathematically perfect deity.

So he says that is the only possible one and then uses that to refute

theism

in general

7This is illogical on so many fronts it's like dealing with a teenager who thinks the constitution entails he doesn't have to listen to his parents about household rules.

And it has gone on for years, with P repeating the same ludicrous arguments where he will even tell theists what they are supposed to believe and then show how what they are supposed to believe is wrong - also using faulty deduction even with his poor foundation.

I will bet he has not had the slightest feedback IRL from someone with a real foundation in philosophy or comparative religion

but here he is with his proofs.

Snore.

1. For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

2. For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

3. Point is the above and many beliefs handed down from millenniums and centuries ago were initiated on a wrong footing and are false.
While many beliefs like the above were corrected to their true nature, the belief of a God continued to be defended by theists up the present. At every turn of defense, theists come up with excuses and the final excuse has to be the ontological absolute perfect God.
1Note it is not a mathematical perfect God, but rather an absolute and perfect God based on crude reasoning.

4. No one to date has presented an convincing proofs God exists as a real thing while the evil and violence acts commanded by the 'real' God continue to be committed by a significant quantum of theists as a religious duty.

5. What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.

6. The above is a critical necessity to counter the extremely dangerous threat posed by theists who are inspired by their 'real' God to war against and kill non-believers where the extreme could be an extermination of the human species.
Such theists are not deterred by M.A.D, for them it is a win-win even if they exterminate the human species, since they are guaranteed the highest honor with eternal life in paradise regardless of what happened on Earth.

Like Fanman's, your above are merely noises and complains but without any argument of substance.

Prismatic567 Here is an example where you only superficially address one of a respondent's seven arguments, go off on a irrelevant tangent about your divine mission to save the world from theism( how's that going for you, by the way?) and dismiss the rest. Your response is not exactly conducive to a meaningful dialogue.

The 7 points were not addressed directly to me.
I did not dismiss outright [like saying it is nonsense, etc.] but I believe I have countered all the points as a whole logical and rationally.

You are making a complain on my response without any counter arguments to the points I raised at all.
Show me which of my 6 premises above are false?

[Prismatic567]

Actually all the mainstream theistic religions define their God as absolute.

Yes...and nihilism is absolutist.
The only place the absolute exists is in the mind.
That's why the mind is defied, and the body denied.
In the mind anything is possible. You can travel in time, simultaneously hold two contrary ideas, synthesize anything into a while.
For the nihilist the mind is the magic producer, projecting into the world everything ti is "lacking".

They have to do that so that no other religion can claim a one-up position on each other's God. No theists would accept the possibility their God to be inferior to another.

Nihilists deal in either/or - Binary, Dualisms.
1/0
Not degrees.

Agree, that is the point of the OP.

The more words, representing concepts, you ground in reality, the more you disarm these imbeciles.

Begin with 'love'. They 'love' love. They sing about it, constantly evoke the word, and yet they are the most love-less minds in the world.
They've idealized love out of existence, so nothing ever satisfies.

There are various perspectives to what is nihilism - nihil'.

In one perspective, what you say is very true, i.e.
Absolutists are nihilists.
Their grounding is on 'nihil' i.e. which is basically nothing, more so, on an impossibility.

Note:

As such, the self-dissolution of Christianity constitutes yet another form of nihilism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nietzsche

[Aegean]

Their ideals, if taken literally and not figuratively, negate the real.
Consider the absolute one - singularity.
If it actually existed, there would be no cosmos.

Consider universe....it requires a projection in some imagined 'external' vantage point, because from inside existence there is no one, there is only multiplicity.

[Aegean]

To put it another way...nihilism is the noumenon, the idea, that negates the phenomenon, the real.

Originally a cosmos void of a one-god, universal morality, and meaning - all defined absolutely - was considered negative. In other words a world void of human constructs was negative, when it is a positive, because it is existence.
Nihilism is the occult existing in the mind, that claims to exist in the 'beyond' or in some secret 'hidden' realm, contradicting the experienced world.

[Prismatic567]

To put it another way...nihilism is the noumenon, the idea, that negates the phenomenon, the real.

Originally a cosmos void of a one-god, universal morality, and meaning - all defined absolutely - was considered negative. In other words a world void of human constructs was negative, when it is a positive, because it is existence.
Nihilism is the occult existing in the mind, that claims to exist in the 'beyond' or in some secret 'hidden' realm, contradicting the experienced world.

You getting on to greater truths.
I am very well verse with Kantian philosophy, your equating nihilism with noumenon is very true and appropriate.
It is from the noumenon [extreme of the empirical] that it is stretched to the absolute thing-in-itself [transcendental idea].
Note this thread,
Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195263

[Karpel Tunnel]

Prismatic567 wrote:
Actually all the mainstream theistic religions define their God as absolute.

And most believers and even most expert believers, like priests say, do not think like this. They do not think in terms of 'absolute' in the way the word is SOMETIMES defined in philosophy. 'Mainstream religions' do not define. That two word noun is an abstraction and a reification of billions of processes involving billions of people. It is not a person, so 'mainstream religions' cannot define. You have a term used in philosophy and theology, where specific experts come in and draw incredibly abstract conclusions that have very little to do with believers, the people who inspired the religions, the people who wrote the texts. You are a cherry picker. And someone who is incredibly naive about both the philosophy of language and human nature - for example, what people would mean when they talk about the greatness of a deity.

And even if it were the case that most people believed God was X, and you actually could prove that 'if God must be X, then God cannot exist,' you still haven't proven that there is no God. You would have simply demonstrated that a particular, perhaps emotionally-driven exaggeration is illogical. People believed the earth was flat for a long time. This didn't mean the earth didn't exist. We can have all sorts of misconceptions about other minds. My wife is like X. We can idealize other people's minds, because we only have indirect contact with them. Our errors and misconceptions and idealizations do not make these people unreal.

You take what you want from religions,

think that you have the authority to say, even to theists, what they believe

then use your cherry picking, appeals to authority and confusions about what actually constitutes a logical argument

to flood forums with your certainty.

Grow up. You have atheists pointing out the problems with your arguments.

[Aegean]

To put it another way...nihilism is the noumenon, the idea, that negates the phenomenon, the real.

Originally a cosmos void of a one-god, universal morality, and meaning - all defined absolutely - was considered negative. In other words a world void of human constructs was negative, when it is a positive, because it is existence.
Nihilism is the occult existing in the mind, that claims to exist in the 'beyond' or in some secret 'hidden' realm, contradicting the experienced world.

You getting on to greater truths.
I am very well verse with Kantian philosophy, your equating nihilism with noumenon is very true and appropriate.
It is from the noumenon [extreme of the empirical] that it is stretched to the absolute thing-in-itself [transcendental idea].
Note this thread,
Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195263

Psychology is involved here.
The mind projects its own desires/needs, as ideas, into a world which fails to provide them to it.
It then subconsciously, or consciously, mistakes tis own projections, its own interpreting processes as existing in the world independently.
It projects noumena into the phenomenal world, intentionally mistaking them as already present there.

Noumena bein interrelations of phenomena. Simplifications/Generalizations of complex interactivities.
Noumena - i.e., abstractions, ideas/ideals - translating the world, are then mistaken as being more real than the real.
Abstraction being a simplification/generalization which eliminates dimensions - i.e., possibilities, where space is possibility, and matter/energy is probability within this field of possibilities.

This is where inversion occurs. The noumena become creators of phenomena, rather than phenomena triggering an interpretation.

In my view Nihilism, already diagnosed by Nietzsche, can be traced back further to emerging self-consciousness, producing vulnerability and insecurity which demands to be comforted.
Nihilism is a defensive reaction, using abstractions represented by words/symbols. It posits language as a shield….declaring that the experienced world is a shadow, illusory, hiding a more profound, more real reality, represented by words - logos.
This is where superstition, the occult, and obscurantism enter the picture.
Philosophy, as it is practiced currently, is corrupted by this defensiveness.
Our language is full of intentional detachments from reality. Words no longer act as mediating symbols, connecting mind to world, or noumena to phenomena, but increasingly refer back to mind, or to text representing another's mind.
Mind is Deified. It is the only way to escape an indifferent threatening tangible, physical, world.
A form of solipsism, often using external sources - via stricture, text - to substitute for reality.
Philosophy has become an endless commentary on commentary, without ever engaging reality. It has become immersed in theory, emotions, abstractions, ideologies, detached from reality.

In this atmosphere, charlatans rule.
Occultists, superstition peddlers, obscurantists, using words to trigger emotions, to imply great rewards and powers, to seduce desperate minds.

[felix dakat]

If we shoot a missile from the space shuttle it will go on indefinitely, i.e. to infinity.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.
In this case, the empirical elements, the missile, time, space are related to this 'I don't know' thus is empirically possible if the evidence is provided.

When we say perfection that is infinite, i.e. till infinity.
Absolute-Perfect infinity is an oxymoron.
If there is absolute-perfection there is no need to attach infinity to it.
The other point is absolute-perfection per se is an impossibility, therefore attaching infinity to it make no difference.

I can use infinity for imperfection, i.e. infinite imperfection.

Thus infinite is a convenience of intellectual surrender.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.

It seems to me that your “missile shot from a space shuttle” would never reach the infinite. No matter how far it went, it would always travel a finite measurable distance. That would be knowable. And yet no matter how far out it traveled there would always be an infinity beyond it. That would be unknowable.
If we use the term “world” to denote the finite and “God” to denote the infinite, then there would be an unbridgeable gap between the world and God. There wouldn’t be a way to ascend to or to know the absolute greatest. The absolute greatest couldn’t be diminished to the point where it became limited and finite, and the knowable couldn’t be inflated to become absolute.

[Prismatic567]

Psychology is involved here.
The mind projects its own desires/needs, as ideas, into a world which fails to provide them to it.
It then subconsciously, or consciously, mistakes tis own projections, its own interpreting processes as existing in the world independently.
It projects noumena into the phenomenal world, intentionally mistaking them as already present there.

Noumena bein interrelations of phenomena. Simplifications/Generalizations of complex interactivities.
Noumena - i.e., abstractions, ideas/ideals - translating the world, are then mistaken as being more real than the real.
Abstraction being a simplification/generalization which eliminates dimensions - i.e., possibilities, where space is possibility, and matter/energy is probability within this field of possibilities.

This is where inversion occurs. The noumena become creators of phenomena, rather than phenomena triggering an interpretation.

In my view Nihilism, already diagnosed by Nietzsche, can be traced back further to emerging self-consciousness, producing vulnerability and insecurity which demands to be comforted.
Nihilism is a defensive reaction, using abstractions represented by words/symbols. It posits language as a shield….declaring that the experienced world is a shadow, illusory, hiding a more profound, more real reality, represented by words - logos.
This is where superstition, the occult, and obscurantism enter the picture.
Philosophy, as it is practiced currently, is corrupted by this defensiveness.
Our language is full of intentional detachments from reality. Words no longer act as mediating symbols, connecting mind to world, or noumena to phenomena, but increasingly refer back to mind, or to text representing another's mind.
Mind is Deified. It is the only way to escape an indifferent threatening tangible, physical, world.
A form of solipsism, often using external sources - via stricture, text - to substitute for reality.
Philosophy has become an endless commentary on commentary, without ever engaging reality. It has become immersed in theory, emotions, abstractions, ideologies, detached from reality.

In this atmosphere, charlatans rule.
Occultists, superstition peddlers, obscurantists, using words to trigger emotions, to imply great rewards and powers, to seduce desperate minds.

Well said, I agree with the above.

Kant used the idea of noumenon to contrast phenomenon, and therefrom demonstrate how the absolutist are duped from their crude reason to extrapolate without grounding to the thing-in-itself [ding-an-sich] and falsely reify it as a 'real objective thing' when in fact, that is merely an illusion.

[Prismatic567]

If we shoot a missile from the space shuttle it will go on indefinitely, i.e. to infinity.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.
In this case, the empirical elements, the missile, time, space are related to this 'I don't know' thus is empirically possible if the evidence is provided.

When we say perfection that is infinite, i.e. till infinity.
Absolute-Perfect infinity is an oxymoron.
If there is absolute-perfection there is no need to attach infinity to it.
The other point is absolute-perfection per se is an impossibility, therefore attaching infinity to it make no difference.

I can use infinity for imperfection, i.e. infinite imperfection.

Thus infinite is a convenience of intellectual surrender.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.

It seems to me that your “missile shot from a space shuttle” would never reach the infinite. No matter how far it went, it would always travel a finite measurable distance. That would be knowable. And yet no matter how far out it traveled there would always be an infinity beyond it. That would be unknowable.
If we use the term “world” to denote the finite and “God” to denote the infinite, then there would be an unbridgeable gap between the world and God. There wouldn’t be a way to ascend to or to know the absolute greatest. The absolute greatest couldn’t be diminished to the point where it became limited and finite, and the knowable couldn’t be inflated to become absolute.

Just like perfection, there are two perspectives to the infinity, i.e.

1. Empirical related infinity
2. Non-empirical related infinity - the absolute infinite or THE Infinite.

Here is the Kantian view, why infinity, infinite as absolute is merely an illusion.

The infinitely large or small cannot be Objects of Experience, and are illusions produced by the dialectical inferences of the reason.
Kant subscribes to neither position, but uses them to show the dialectical consequences provoked by reason's attempt to infer absolute, unconditioned consequences from premises Conditioned by finite human Understanding.
-Howard Cargill

My point is the infinity, infinite that you claimed as Absolute [i.e. God] is impossible to be real empirically nor philosophically.

Note, absolute = totally unconditional from everything including human beings.
Where your God is claimed to absolute and absolutely-perfect, there is in principle an unbridgeable-gap. Thus there is no possibility of knowing such a God as real by any human being.

As implied earlier, when you insist your infinity/Infinite [God] is absolutely absolute, it is no difference from the claim God is absolutely-perfect as I had demonstrated in the OP.

[Prismatic567]

Grow up. You have atheists pointing out the problems with your arguments.

This is hasty generalization given merely based on two atheists so far.

At present, so far, Aegean and me have similar thoughts.

Note what counts is whether there are rational counter-arguments to my arguments grounded on critical thinking.
How many disagree with me via their subjective feelings without counter arguments is not critical.

[Aegean]

God, as these nihilists have defined the concept, implies an absolute state - a singularity, i.e., immutable, indivisible.
This contradicts our experience of reality, which is continuously mutable, and infinitely divisible - for reasons I will not get into here, but has to do with how the mind translated dynamic interactivity into singular abstractions.
There is no underlying, beyond, to validate this mono-god, because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity, i.e., by claiming that it exists in some alternate reality, ro in a occult realm, or in some beyond time/space plane of existence.
If someone shows me, not tells me, but shows me a singularity, I'll conceded the point and pray to the Abrahamic one-god, until then I will believe ni gods, as representations of natural forces.

[felix dakat]

If we shoot a missile from the space shuttle it will go on indefinitely, i.e. to infinity.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.
In this case, the empirical elements, the missile, time, space are related to this 'I don't know' thus is empirically possible if the evidence is provided.

When we say perfection that is infinite, i.e. till infinity.
Absolute-Perfect infinity is an oxymoron.
If there is absolute-perfection there is no need to attach infinity to it.
The other point is absolute-perfection per se is an impossibility, therefore attaching infinity to it make no difference.

I can use infinity for imperfection, i.e. infinite imperfection.

Thus infinite is a convenience of intellectual surrender.
'Infinity' is simply 'I don't know' not 'not-knowable'.

It seems to me that your “missile shot from a space shuttle” would never reach the infinite. No matter how far it went, it would always travel a finite measurable distance. That would be knowable. And yet no matter how far out it traveled there would always be an infinity beyond it. That would be unknowable.
If we use the term “world” to denote the finite and “God” to denote the infinite, then there would be an unbridgeable gap between the world and God. There wouldn’t be a way to ascend to or to know the absolute greatest. The absolute greatest couldn’t be diminished to the point where it became limited and finite, and the knowable couldn’t be inflated to become absolute.

Just like perfection, there are two perspectives to the infinity, i.e.

1. Empirical related infinity
2. Non-empirical related infinity - the absolute infinite or THE Infinite.

Here is the Kantian view, why infinity, infinite as absolute is merely an illusion.

The infinitely large or small cannot be Objects of Experience, and are illusions produced by the dialectical inferences of the reason.
Kant subscribes to neither position, but uses them to show the dialectical consequences provoked by reason's attempt to infer absolute, unconditioned consequences from premises Conditioned by finite human Understanding.
-Howard Cargill

My point is the infinity, infinite that you claimed as Absolute [i.e. God] is impossible to be real empirically nor philosophically.

Note, absolute = totally unconditional from everything including human beings.
Where your God is claimed to absolute and absolutely-perfect, there is in principle an unbridgeable-gap. Thus there is no possibility of knowing such a God as real by any human being.

As implied earlier, when you insist your infinity/Infinite [God] is absolutely absolute, it is no difference from the claim God is absolutely-perfect as I had demonstrated in the OP.

My point was that infinity is unknowable. If “the absolute” refers to the infinite, it is unknowable. Infinity/absolute taken as totality is an illusion. That's clear from what I stated in the missile thought experiment. The problem is that your statement that infinity and/or is impossible to be real empirically, conflates epistemology and ontology. It is impossible for infinity to be known empirically. My riff on your "missile shot from a space shuttle" illustrates exactly that point. Kant’s critique of pure reason is a work of epistemology not ontology. Read his other works. He never gave up on God as a possibility. You seem to be making scientific empiricism into a closed system which it ain’t.

[Fixed Cross]

Ontology and epistemology meet in a negative definition, definition of what can not be -
an infinitely great totality.


It is useful to look at Anaximander and his notion of Apeiron, by which the infinity of God can be replaced.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Note what counts is whether there are rational counter-arguments to my arguments grounded on critical thinking.
How many disagree with me via their subjective feelings without counter arguments is not critical.

This is an unnecessary detachment, because it assumes that subjectivity does not involve critical thinking and/or rationality, and that subjective arguments are not valid in response to your claims. Not on the basis of their content, but because of their nature. As if when discussing things like God and perfection our personal beliefs are not relevant or do not influence our thinking.

[Artimas]

God, as these nihilists have defined the concept, implies an absolute state - a singularity, i.e., immutable, indivisible.
This contradicts our experience of reality, which is continuously mutable, and infinitely divisible - for reasons I will not get into here, but has to do with how the mind translated dynamic interactivity into singular abstractions.
There is no underlying, beyond, to validate this mono-god, because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity, i.e., by claiming that it exists in some alternate reality, ro in a occult realm, or in some beyond time/space plane of existence.
If someone shows me, not tells me, but shows me a singularity, I'll conceded the point and pray to the Abrahamic one-god, until then I will believe ni gods, as representations of natural forces.

There is no “one” god other than the reintegration of mankind’s collective will. It is a force, it is wisdom, both absolute and infinite, continuous growth of contextual questions after every answer, wisdom never stops. It is all good, all powerful and all knowing, that is what wisdom is and this god that has been Mis-interpreted.

The singularity is the nothingness of which something spawned..

[Prismatic567]

God, as these nihilists have defined the concept, implies an absolute state - a singularity, i.e., immutable, indivisible.
This contradicts our experience of reality, which is continuously mutable, and infinitely divisible - for reasons I will not get into here, but has to do with how the mind translated dynamic interactivity into singular abstractions.
There is no underlying, beyond, to validate this mono-god, because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity, i.e., by claiming that it exists in some alternate reality, or in a occult realm, or in some beyond time/space plane of existence.
If someone shows me, not tells me, but shows me a singularity, I'll conceded the point and pray to the Abrahamic one-god, until then I will believe ni gods, as representations of natural forces.

That is the point;

because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity

[Artimas]

God, as these nihilists have defined the concept, implies an absolute state - a singularity, i.e., immutable, indivisible.
This contradicts our experience of reality, which is continuously mutable, and infinitely divisible - for reasons I will not get into here, but has to do with how the mind translated dynamic interactivity into singular abstractions.
There is no underlying, beyond, to validate this mono-god, because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity, i.e., by claiming that it exists in some alternate reality, or in a occult realm, or in some beyond time/space plane of existence.
If someone shows me, not tells me, but shows me a singularity, I'll conceded the point and pray to the Abrahamic one-god, until then I will believe ni gods, as representations of natural forces.

That is the point;

because we can use similar strategies to validate any absurdity

It exists right now without any absurdity, it’s wisdom and I’ve already proven it. It is one thing that does not spawn out of imagination, only if you give it form outside of existence does it.