Re: New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2023 7:50 am
wrongly posted
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Whatever is claimed to be real and objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the most credible and reliable is the science-FSK [standard index at 100].Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:55 amNot really.As far as I'm aware, there is no concrete evidence for any supernatural claim, so I would say it is very rational to reject such claims when you make them.
I don't know the location of Alpha Centauri. My friend, the astronomer, says he does. All I can say about that is that I personally still don't know where Alpha Centauri is...I can say nothing at all about what he knows.
Likewise, the fact that you admit you know of no evidence for God doesn't make it remotely rational for you to extend that into a more universal claim, and say that nobody does.
I believe you have some sort of subconscious fears in addressing my argument.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:22 amWell, this is the wonderful argument you had there:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:01 amNot for me but for the sake of truth, philosophy and humanity.
It is impossible for God to exist as real
P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist real.
Really? That's your best shot? Give me something worth bothering with, and we can both help humanity.
Which is not direct evidence. Some places on earth you can see a light there in the sky. But that it is a star and what kind of star and all that is all indirect evidence drawn from the effects of the star seen in devices. Further, as you yourself have pointed out, the light from that start, according to the scientific FSK left that star over 4 years ago. This is not direct experiencing. For all we know some alien species moved the darn thing or destroyed it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:43 am The existence of Alpha Centauri is empirical-rational evidence-based {see evidence below] and conditioned upon the science-physics-cosmological FSK, thus has a reasonable degree of objectivity and realness, say at >50%.
Anyone can view and take pictures the Alpha Centauri from a proper telescope.
Not in the above sense.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:53 amWhich is not direct evidence. Some places on earth you can see a light there in the sky. But that it is a star and what kind of star and all that is all indirect evidence drawn from the effects of the star seen in devices. Further, as you yourself have pointed out, the light from that start, according to the scientific FSK left that star over 4 years ago. This is not direct experiencing. For all we know some alien species moved the darn thing or destroyed it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:43 am The existence of Alpha Centauri is empirical-rational evidence-based {see evidence below] and conditioned upon the science-physics-cosmological FSK, thus has a reasonable degree of objectivity and realness, say at >50%.
Anyone can view and take pictures the Alpha Centauri from a proper telescope.
I couldn't understand most of the sentences here. I understand the first sentence but not exactly what it refers to. The second sentence seems to be missing something as allong as the spc FSK___________________.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:41 am Not in the above sense.
Direct evidence re FSK is in this sense;
It is direct evidence as long as the science-physics-cosmological FSK because it is collecting its own evidence directly.
If the Astronomy or Astrology FSK borrow [refer and quote] the evidence from this science-physics-cosmological FSK, this evidence then is 'indirect' in reference to its FSK because it did not generate such evidences within its own FSK.
Indirect or direct evidence in this case has nothing to do with realism [philosophical] versus antirealism.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:24 amI couldn't understand most of the sentences here. I understand the first sentence but not exactly what it refers to. The second sentence seems to be missing something as allong as the spc FSK___________________.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:41 am Not in the above sense.
Direct evidence re FSK is in this sense;
It is direct evidence as long as the science-physics-cosmological FSK because it is collecting its own evidence directly.
If the Astronomy or Astrology FSK borrow [refer and quote] the evidence from this science-physics-cosmological FSK, this evidence then is 'indirect' in reference to its FSK because it did not generate such evidences within its own FSK.
I don't think it addresses the issue of realism in the spc FSK. If the evidence is indirect it should not be accepted by a non-realist regardless of the FSK. An FSK that relies on indirect evidence of something is realist.
If we don't accept someone, for example here, talking about something that is not directly experienced and calling it real, then there is no reason for us to accept other people doing that. For example, alpha centauri.
Here's ChatGpt [with reservations] unbiased views on my argument;Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 4:09 pmIt's not an argument. It's neither logically valid nor premised truthfully, which makes it unsound. As such, it represents no intellectual challenge, no interesting idea, no reasonable objection to anything. It's just too boring and misguided to work with, too easily dispatched.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:41 amI believe you have some sort of subconscious fears in addressing my argument.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:22 am
Well, this is the wonderful argument you had there:
It is impossible for God to exist as real
P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist real.
Really? That's your best shot? Give me something worth bothering with, and we can both help humanity.
And that, you will discover, is why it is not (despite your belief that it presents an important argument) anything you will find in the relevant skeptical literature; you're the only one who thinks it's an "argument."
Absurd. I have no idea what you asked it, but whatever it was, it was clearly not something it was equipped to process.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:52 am ChatGpt:
Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.
ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;
ChatGpt:
In summary, your argument is logically coherent,
Well, at least it found ONE of its at least four flaws.but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality
Cliche. It's true of every argument.Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.
Veritas, what do you mean by "absolutely perfect"?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 2:51 am P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
see:attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:47 amVeritas, what do you mean by "absolutely perfect"?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 2:51 am P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
Veritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:36 amsee:attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:47 amVeritas, what do you mean by "absolutely perfect"?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 2:51 am P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893
There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection
The link is where I have explained in detailed what you want to know, i.e. what I meant byattofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:42 amVeritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:36 amsee:
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893
There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection
Do you believe the universe is "absolutely perfect"?
Hey, force me do the copy-paste to this thread then!-->Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 11:43 amThe link is where I have explained in detailed what you want to know, i.e. what I meant byattofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:42 amVeritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:36 am
see:
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893
There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection
Do you believe the universe is "absolutely perfect"?
"absolutely perfect".
It is just a matter of clicking the link to read the answer your want therein.
Therein I had explained, there is only relative perfection, and absolute or totally unconditional perfection is an impossibility in the real world which is the real universe that is somehow conditioned upon the human conditions.
Because the universe is somehow conditioned it cannot be an unconditioned, i.e. absolute perfection.
The 'one-up' instinct is very evident among humans, especially it is so critical within theism.attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:18 pmHey, force me do the copy-paste to this thread then!-->Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 11:43 amThe link is where I have explained in detailed what you want to know, i.e. what I meant byattofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:42 am
Veritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".
Do you believe the universe is "absolutely perfect"?
"absolutely perfect".
It is just a matter of clicking the link to read the answer your want therein.
Therein I had explained, there is only relative perfection, and absolute or totally unconditional perfection is an impossibility in the real world which is the real universe that is somehow conditioned upon the human conditions.
Because the universe is somehow conditioned it cannot be an unconditioned, i.e. absolute perfection.
2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.
Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.
This last statement--> "..any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god."
If God had an attribute less than perfect then it would be subjected to being inferior to another's god is irrational, indeed ridiculous since as you know, God is God, ONE God - it could have loads of "imperfections" (whatever that means) and still be GOD.
..for the record as one with knowledge that God exists I personally couldn't give a rats arse regarding "perfection" (whatever that means).
Please explain what you ACTUALLY mean by an attribute of God having perfection as opposed to imperfection. Could you provide an example?