God is an Impossibility

[phyllo]

Even if it is every one here [10+ or so posters] I am not bothered as long as my argument is rational and sound and has consensus [intersubjectively] within the greater philosophical community i.e. the giants and members of Western, Eastern, etc.

Do you have a consensus "within the greater philosophical community"?

Isn't the real consensus that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved?

[Dan~]

Isn't the real consensus that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved?

A god that loves us and is really strong would be able to do a little materialization here and there, upgrade or heal a person, etc.
You don't need to be all powerful to do that.

God and love are different things / paradigms.
I realize that, but:
Real things seem mostly provable. And if God is super real, he should be super provable, too.

[phyllo]

A god that loves us and is really strong would be able to do a little materialization here and there, upgrade or heal a person, etc.
You don't need to be all powerful to do that.

There are people who say that God appeared and/or talked to them. The skeptics say that didn't happen.

There are many claimed/documented cures. The skeptics say that they didn't happen.


It's also possible that God is completely indifferent to humans. Or that He thinks it's better for humans to solve their own problems.

Real things seem mostly provable. And if God is super real, he should be super provable, too.

Depends on what you mean by "provable" but generally proofs are difficult except in limited cases.

[Dan~]

A god that loves us and is really strong would be able to do a little materialization here and there, upgrade or heal a person, etc.
You don't need to be all powerful to do that.

There are people who say that God appeared and/or talked to them. The skeptics say that didn't happen.

There are many claimed/documented cures. The skeptics say that they didn't happen.


It's also possible that God is completely indifferent to humans. Or that He thinks it's better for humans to solve their own problems.

Real things seem mostly provable. And if God is super real, he should be super provable, too.

Depends on what you mean by "provable" but generally proofs are difficult except in limited cases.

I know miracles happen. But they aren't exactly consistent or intelligible. A god that has limits, could do small miracles, while falling short to police the world and heal the sick. It'd be best if he prevented the creation of nuclear weapons, for example.

Indifferent means he doesn't want worship or obedience, right?

[phyllo]

I know miracles happen. But they aren't exactly consistent or intelligible. A god that has limits, could do small miracles, while falling short to police the world and heal the sick. It'd be best if he prevented the creation of nuclear weapons, for example.

One has to be careful not to start thinking that "God ought to do the things that I think ought to be done".

Indifferent means he doesn't want worship or obedience, right?

Indifferent means that He neither loves nor hates humans - He doesn't care.

I don't think that God wants worship or obedience. But that's just my opinion.

[Dan~]

One has to be careful not to start thinking that "God ought to do the things that I think ought to be done".

no matter what we think or want, personally, im sure genetic modifications, and AI, will "play god", while the gods of the masses, also allowed things like mass extinctions in earth's history. People wont be protected, saved, etc. Why would god destroy or allow the destruction of the majority of all earth life's species? If he or it made them in the first place. It is like a parent making a big family then gunning them all down one day.

This may not be worded perfectly, but, the message should be clear:
A good god creates a good world.
A bad god creates a world of death, suffering, and loss.

[phyllo]

This may not be worded perfectly, but, the message should be clear:
A good god creates a good world.
A bad god creates a world of death, suffering, and loss.

The world is as it is. You can choose to change the things what are within your power and control. Or not.

[Dan~]

Is that a truism ?
"You can effect the world, if you can effect the world."

If I had god powerz id definitely upgrade reality.
If I don't, who will?

[phyllo]

Is that a truism ?
"You can effect the world, if you can effect the world."

I didn't write that. I wrote that you had a choice.

[James S Saint]

You might also want to remember that it isn't YOUR world.

[Prismatic567]

Even if it is every one here [10+ or so posters] I am not bothered as long as my argument is rational and sound and has consensus [intersubjectively] within the greater philosophical community i.e. the giants and members of Western, Eastern, etc.

Do you have a consensus "within the greater philosophical community"?

Isn't the real consensus that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved?

Note most of the points I made are supported by the giants of philosophy, i.e. Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Russell, Buddhism [other Eastern Religions] and others. These great philosophers has a large share of consensus with many people.

Note there are many strong atheists who just don't give a damn and reject God's existence outright as a ridiculous claim. We share the same views but I justified my claim and leaving no doubts via reason with arguments [OP].

Isn't the real consensus that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved?

Nope this view belong to a minority of agnostics.

The majority of theists believed it is "proven" [from their own experiences and other theists] God is very real 'empirically' to the extent God will listens and answers their prayers, and most of all will assure them of salvation with eternal life in a real heaven [up there, some with virgins].

[Prismatic567]

You might also want to remember that it isn't YOUR world.

That is why you have a narrow and shallow view.

In term as a human being 'you' have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.
From day one of breathing, eating, farting and shitting, you have been a contributor to reality-as-it-is. With your next breath you have created a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago].

The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.

[James S Saint]

You might also want to remember that it isn't YOUR world.

That is why you have a narrow and shallow view.

In term as a human being 'you' have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.
From day one of breathing, eating, farting and shitting, you have been a contributor to reality-as-it-is. With your next breath you have created a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago].

The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.

So you think by being one of 7 billion humans, you OWN the world?

That explains a lot.

[phyllo]

Nope this view belong to a minority of agnostics.

The majority of theists believed it is "proven" [from their own experiences and other theists] God is very real 'empirically' to the extent God will listens and answers their prayers, and most of all will assure them of salvation with eternal life in a real heaven [up there, some with virgins].

I was referring to a consensus in the "greater philosophical community" which has a higher standard of proof than the "man in the street". I doubt that most people know what proof is.

[Prismatic567]

You might also want to remember that it isn't YOUR world.

That is why you have a narrow and shallow view.

In term as a human being 'you' have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.
From day one of breathing, eating, farting and shitting, you have been a contributor to reality-as-it-is. With your next breath you have created a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago].

The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.

So you think by being one of 7 billion humans, you OWN the world?

That explains a lot.

Misleading and rhetorical again.
Where did I say "I OWN the world".

I stated above;
"you have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things."

I did not mean 'share' as in the share-market, where I can trade my 'shares.'

In the above I meant co-share as a contributor and participator with 7+ billion humans.

[Serendipper]

Perfection is an impossibility,
God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Why must god be perfect? All you've proved is that you can put up a strawman and knock it down.

You setup impossible conditions, state that god must be subject to those conditions, then claim you've proved something.

A theist would not want a god that is less perfect

Who cares what a theist wants? I'm interested in what is, not what other people want.

The idea of God has to be perfect, else it is an inferior god.

Then disprove inferior gods. The title is "God is an Impossibility". You didn't qualify in the title which gods and it's false advertising. Prove Brahman does not exist.

God has to be absolutely perfect and everything else need not be absolutely perfect.

Why? Why would a perfect god create imperfect stuff?

As I had argued, the claim of an ideal God has to be absolutely perfect [ontological god] so that no others will have the opportunity to claim their God is more perfect.

So the god that you're proving nonexistent must be perfect so that other nonexistent gods do not kick his ass?

Note my argument is against the idea and existence of an ideal God which is real in reality as claimed by theists.

Oh I see. So the title of the thread should be changed to "A Perfect God is an Impossibility, But All Other Gods May Be possible." Wherein you define perfection as impossible, stuff god in the condition, and claim you've proved something useful.
_________________________________________________________________________

I want to know if you have ever admitted you're wrong about anything? Or are you absolutely perfect?

You're a good example of how smart people are able to defend bad ideas http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-sm ... bad-ideas/

The thing is, though, that I measure intelligence by one's propensity to be wrong, because in order to be right, you must first be willing to be wrong and accept correction. If you can't be wrong, you can never be right... it's like a blockage that prevents further progress.

You're running around frantically searching for ways to salvage this failing "proof" of yours because you bought it before you took it for a test drive complete with thorough inspection or else you could have easily admitted its flaws. Nobody wants to admit they bought a lemon, but I suggest you start making lemonade because this proof has soured.

[Serendipper]

That you are as poor of spirit as to worship the void in your heart, doesn't mean the universe is as empty as it makes you feel.

Damn, that's well-crafted! Are you the genesis or are you quoting someone? I had to stop and write that down!

For everyone who couldn't figure it out, it means because you think the universe itself is lifeless, that you are merely an empty, lifeless machine. When you put the universe down, you put yourself down as well because you came out of it.

Why choose one over the other:
- Consciousness is a complicated form of mineral.
- Mineral is a simple form of consciousness.

Preference, that's all. Do you want to put a good spin or a bad spin on it? Do you want to say the universe is alive or that you are dead? What you choose reveals who you are.

[Serendipper]

Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change").

Dark matter has no charge to emit radiation, yet it has mass which affects by gravity; therefore dark matter is close to being nonexistent by your definition, but not quite. So let's suppose, for sake of argument, that there is something out there that has no charge and no gravity. Suppose this "stuff" resulted from the creative process of the universe as a kind of "waste" product and it makes no difference if it exists except that it's a necessary byproduct of the process that engendered it like heat is a necessary byproduct of generating usable power. Would you say that unaffective byproduct exists?

I think potential to affect necessitates existence, but existence doesn't necessitate potential to affect. Just because something makes no difference if it exist doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[Prismatic567]

Serendipper,
Noted your points but the main one is the following;

Perfection is an impossibility,
God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Why must god be perfect? All you've proved is that you can put up a strawman and knock it down.

You setup impossible conditions, state that god must be subject to those conditions, then claim you've proved something.

I have argued extensively why "God MUST be absolutely perfect" all over this and other threads.

Here is a point, why God MUST be absolutely perfect.

The point is the initial drive of theism is a psychological issue and with crude reason drive theists to invent the idea of a God to soothes those psychological angst. The initial concepts of God were mostly anthropomorphic, but throughout history such flimsy [silly] anthropomorphic concepts has been questioned by rational people and even other theists.

When questioned, each group will correct their errors and shortfalls and come up with new idea of God to cover for the underlying psychological issues.
But as each new anthropomorphic or empirical concepts are raised to justify the existence of God, they are continually attacked/challenged by rational & critical thinkers and other theists as well.

This continual attack pushes the concept of God to the idea [not concept] of an ontological God, i.e. the absolutely perfect God or the absolutely Absolute which no other theists can challenge but exposes its back to the philosophical rationality.

A good example is Islam per the Quran is claiming Allah is THE GOD [absolutely perfect] while the God of Christianity as at present is a corrupted God. To counter the above the Christians [advanced theologians] has no choice but to claim their God as an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.

Before the emergence of the idea of the ontological God, each theist will claim his God is more powerful than another's. If one claim his God has power of X, then the next will claim his God is power of X+1 and it goes on to an infinite regression.
The ending of the infinite regression is the ontological God, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists. If every theist claim such a God then no theist can claim their God is greater than another.
As such the ontological God has to the default ultimately.

If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that. In any case, to prove their lesser God is real, they will have to produce evidence to prove their lesser God is real.

[Serendipper]

If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that.

That looks like a concession to me. Deal!

Perfection defined as "all yang and no yin" cannot exist. This is the essential problem of man... trying to have all good and no bad. There is no such thing and it cannot even be conceptualized.

What is good? What is bad? Well, it's relative and variable. Right now i have a fever so I walk outside and the cold air feels good and then it feels too cold so I come back inside and the warm air feels good and then it's too warm again. So, good is lack of bad and both vary. You could say, "why not set the temp so it's perfect?" Because then it would be flat and it wouldn't feel good. We have to eat bitter in order to taste sweet.

Why are sharks no smarter after 400 million years of evolution? Because, obviously, sharks are optimally intelligent. If they were smarter, they would get bored and be so curious that they'd get into trouble. Or perhaps intelligence just doesn't make any difference. Who knows, but the point is that sharks ARE perfect. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been selected for.

Nature doesn't make mistakes. Have you ever seen a misshapen cloud? Everything that exists is perfect.

Can you imagine a perfect warrior? One that has all strengths and no disadvantages? Would he be big and strong? Well, then that's his weakness I could exploit. Strength requires energy, so starve him. Strength requires mass, so lead his fat ass onto a weak bridge. Every advantage has a disadvantage.

What you have done is proved the jehovah god cannot exist because that god cannot be perfect as they popularly proclaim he is. Well, either he doesn't exist or he is not perfect, but in the bible that god does have a left and right hand.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

They don't like to admit that.

Jesus sits on the right hand of god, but who sits on the left? The district attorney sits on the left. The defense is on the right and the accuser is on the left.

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

God has a left and right hand and he has a yetzer hara, evil inclination, an element of irreducible rascality. He couldn't exist if he didn't, as you have proven.

[Prismatic567]

If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that.

That looks like a concession to me. Deal!

Nope.

I understand human believe in all sorts of God [inferior, superior, perfect, not perfect, immutable, etc.] but as I had explained and justify a God by default MUST be an 'absolutely perfect being' so that it does not end up eating the shit of another greater God.

Any theist who is made aware of this limitation of their God will definitely opt for the ontological God -an absolutely perfect being - since it is as easy as just a shifting of thoughts to a more secured idea of God.

Perfection defined as "all yang and no yin" cannot exist. This is the essential problem of man... trying to have all good and no bad. There is no such thing and it cannot even be conceptualized.

What is good? What is bad? Well, it's relative and variable. Right now i have a fever so I walk outside and the cold air feels good and then it feels too cold so I come back inside and the warm air feels good and then it's too warm again. So, good is lack of bad and both vary. You could say, "why not set the temp so it's perfect?" Because then it would be flat and it wouldn't feel good. We have to eat bitter in order to taste sweet.

Why are sharks no smarter after 400 million years of evolution? Because, obviously, sharks are optimally intelligent. If they were smarter, they would get bored and be so curious that they'd get into trouble. Or perhaps intelligence just doesn't make any difference. Who knows, but the point is that sharks ARE perfect. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been selected for.

Nature doesn't make mistakes. Have you ever seen a misshapen cloud? Everything that exists is perfect.

Can you imagine a perfect warrior? One that has all strengths and no disadvantages? Would he be big and strong? Well, then that's his weakness I could exploit. Strength requires energy, so starve him. Strength requires mass, so lead his fat ass onto a weak bridge. Every advantage has a disadvantage.

What you have done is proved the jehovah god cannot exist because that god cannot be perfect as they popularly proclaim he is. Well, either he doesn't exist or he is not perfect, but in the bible that god does have a left and right hand.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

They don't like to admit that.

Jesus sits on the right hand of god, but who sits on the left? The district attorney sits on the left. The defense is on the right and the accuser is on the left.

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

God has a left and right hand and he has a yetzer hara, evil inclination, an element of irreducible rascality. He couldn't exist if he didn't, as you have proven.

Nature doesn't make mistakes. Have you ever seen a misshapen cloud? Everything that exists is perfect.

Yes nature doesn't make mistakes, i.e. perfect but that is only a conditional perfection.
What is perfect within Nature is relative perfect of empirical things.
What is in nature is never absolutely perfect.
Note nature as in reality is co-created by humans, thus conditional.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193726

What I am arguing is, the idea of God is the only thing that is claimed to be absolutely prefect primarily to ensure one's God do not have to eat the shit of another greater God.
Thus God MUST be an absolutely perfect being than which no greater perfection exists.

[Serendipper]

If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that.

That looks like a concession to me. Deal!

Nope.

You said you have no issue, so I said deal, then you said you have issue. That's underhanded. You offer a deal, I accept, then you renege.

I understand human believe in all sorts of God [inferior, superior, perfect, not perfect, immutable, etc.] but as I had explained and justify a God by default MUST be an 'absolutely perfect being' so that it does not end up eating the shit of another greater God.

1) perfect god can't exist
2) lesser god can't exist because it would eat shit from the perfect god that we've already determined can't exist.

If you can't see the logic in that, then I will have to renege my stated support of your intelligence as it appears I may have been wrong. I'm sorry, but look:

If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that.

God by default MUST be an 'absolutely perfect being' so that it does not end up eating shit

So either you're wrong in one of those statements or you have a mental handicap of some sort that prevents you from seeing the contradiction.

[Prismatic567]

You said you have no issue, so I said deal, then you said you have issue. That's underhanded. You offer a deal, I accept, then you renege.

I did not offer any deal. It was your misunderstanding and note below you fallacy of conflation.

I understand human believe in all sorts of God [inferior, superior, perfect, not perfect, immutable, etc.] but as I had explained and justify a God by default MUST be an 'absolutely perfect being' so that it does not end up eating the shit of another greater God.

1) perfect god can't exist
2) lesser god can't exist because it would eat shit from the perfect god that we've already determined can't exist.

If you can't see the logic in that, then I will have to renege my stated support of your intelligence as it appears I may have been wrong. I'm sorry, but look:

I presume you understand sets, system and perspectives.

1) perfect god can't exist
This is considered within an empirical rational reality.
Within an empirical rational reality, I claim an absolutely perfect God can't exists, i.e. impossible. Theists would claim otherwise.

2) lesser god can't exist because it would eat shit from the perfect god that we've already determined can't exist.
This point 2 do not involve me and an empirical rational reality, but it is confined within the illusory world of the theists.

Thus you got it wrong, it should be;
If theists insist God exists, then the existence of a lesser god of theists-X will not be favored because it would have to eat shit from the greatest absolutely perfect God that theists-Y insist exist.

So note there are different perspectives and sense which involve different type of theists.

What you have done and lacking in thinking by conflating all the different senses and perspectives to invent your straw man.

Btw, I don't need your patronization.
I personally know where I stand.

If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that.

God by default MUST be an 'absolutely perfect being' so that it does not end up eating shit

So either you're wrong in one of those statements or you have a mental handicap of some sort that prevents you from seeing the contradiction.[/quote]Same explanation above.

What you have done and lacking in thinking in conflating all the different senses and perspectives to invent your straw man.

A contradiction is 'P' and 'not-P' in the same time and sense [perspective].

Now who is the one with a mental handicap?

[Serendipper]

You said you have no issue, so I said deal, then you said you have issue. That's underhanded. You offer a deal, I accept, then you renege.

I did not offer any deal. It was your misunderstanding and note below you fallacy of conflation.

Yes you did; it's plain for everyone to see. First you cheat, and now you lie. Right here:

If anyone want to choose a lesser god that is inferior to another, I have no critical issue with that.

If you have no issue, then stop having issues.

Btw, I don't need your patronization.
I personally know where I stand.

Yes, me too.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

You'll stop at nothing to avoid admitting you're wrong and it's astonishing the sacrifices you will make to that end. You've thrown your ethics right out the window and slaughtered your dignity on the altar of your ego. I'm not sure what else I could learn from this interaction as I'm thoroughly convinced you'd throw your only son under the bus to avoid admitting defeat and I suppose I now know what I needed to discover. Thank you for you time, but there is no point to us going round and round any further.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You'll stop at nothing to avoid admitting you're wrong and it's astonishing the sacrifices you will make to that end. You've thrown your ethics right out the window and slaughtered your dignity on the altar of your ego. I'm not sure what else I could learn from this interaction as I'm thoroughly convinced you'd throw your only son under the bus to avoid admitting defeat and I suppose I now know what I needed to discover. Thank you for you time, but there is no point to us going round and round any further.

NOtice Prismatic that this reaction to you and the way you post is becoming the rule. You are getting useful feedback about how you communicate and interact with people. There is very little we can do to ensure you learn from this. Fortunately, you lose something if you cannot learn about yourself, we don't.