New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

But I disagree with VA that the existence of supernatural things - specifically gods - is an impossibility, because that claim incurs a burden of proof which, as I see it, can't be met. So I think the rational position is disbelief, pending evidence.

Do you have a counter for my argument?

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Here's your argument:

P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real. [sic]
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real. [sic]

This mistakes the abstract nouns absoluteness and perfection for things of some kind that, therefore, may or may not exist, or whose existence may be impossible. And that's an ancient philosophical delusion.

In descriptive contexts, we can use them and their cognates perfectly rationally. For example:

The meal was perfect.
Her testimony was absolutely truthful.

Thanks for your objection - that is the spirit of philosophy.

Did you read the following note at the bottom of the OP?

• "Note:
  The next 3 posts below are critical to the OP."

PH:This mistakes the abstract nouns absoluteness and perfection for things of some kind that, therefore, may or may not exist, or whose existence may be impossible. And that's an ancient philosophical delusion.


Strawman again.
I did not use absoluteness [noun] in this case. I stated 'absolute' as an adjective.

It is the theists who claim 'absolute perfection' for their God, not me.

In any case, isn't that the mistake of the theists who made such claims, thus they are indulging in an illusion [not real]?
Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

It is not restricted to an ancient philosophical delusion but it is even delusional at the present

In post#2, I defined "what is real"

• 2. Reality:
  What is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
  The most credible, reliable and objective at present is the human and empirically-based Scientific-FSK as the standard at 100.
  The lesser credible and objective FSKs are, e.g. the theistic FSK based on faith is merely 0.001 of the standard.
  
  Reality is all-there-is, 'all' includes all person[s] in existence.
  What is real is Empirical Realism [Kantian aka Transcendental Idealism] which is in contrast to Philosophical Realism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  "[Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views."
  As such what is real must be empirically verifiable and justifiable plus supported by the finest philosophical reasonings.

Btw, your grounding in denying human-based objective FSK-ed moral facts is also based on physical realism.
Thus your grounding is delusional and has no credibility to deny human-based objective FSK-ed moral facts.

[Iwannaplato]

Unless there were minds around to witness the big bang, then the idea that it happened inherently implies it happened in some sort of mind independent way. As far as I know, the scientific proponents of the big bang do not generally suggest there were minds around to witness it

Right and in scientific realism, this does not matter. Or, better put does not preclude positing those entities as real. Which is what most astronomers do. They are realists. They are not like Von Frassen, for example, who would even preclude considering entities we can only see through telescopes as real. Direct observation. His Astronomical FSK, if he had one, would not be like the astronomers. It would not be realist.

[Flannel Jesus]

If the bulk of the scientific establishment one day comes to accept some sort of mind-dependent, collaboratively mind-created vision of reality, let me know! I'll be very interested to find out, for sure.

[Iwannaplato]

If the bulk of the scientific establishment one day comes to accept some sort of mind-dependent, collaboratively mind-created vision of reality, let me know! I'll be very interested to find out, for sure.

Well, von Frassen isn't arguing that. He an epistemologically cautious anti-realist. His position is not VA's.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, most anti realist literature doesn't actually seem to have all that much in common with VAs arguments, from what I've seen.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, most anti realist literature doesn't actually seem to have all that much in common with VAs arguments, from what I've seen.

I mean, right off the bat, Van Frassen is agnostic about unobservables. VA asserts they don't exist.
Also VF does not accept what VA calls FSKs in the way VA does.
He says these have overreached their scope, due to scientific realism.
When VA is cornered and needs to justify that X exists, like the apple rotting in the box, he turns to what is a realist FSK.
VF has reinterpreted all the FSKs.
VF also does not do the not currently observed does not exist jump that VA does.
The Moon does not exist when not looked at: VA.
For VF the Moon is an observable and sustains.
There are other differences.
I've been curious about VF on morals.

Are objective moral facts observables?
I don't think so.

You can see neurons but not morals.

And I think VA's position gets even weaker because he considers animals as completely incapable or morality. (in fact he goes beyond this to say that animals only have moral worth and CAN only have moral worth in terms of how they affect humans. Anyone thinking they can have a moral attitude about animals in and of themselves is confused according to VA)

But why do I say that his attitude about animals undermines his position as an antirealist around morality even more?

Well, animals have empathetic neural patterns. Animals display empathy, even across species. For example.

But these objective facts do not mean they have morals.

So there is some unobservable quality to human neurons that means that VA can conclude these neurons demonstate objective moral facts. Not facts, but moral facts.

Obviously these patterns of neurons connect to behavior and attitudes.
But they do that in animals.

Antirealists would have a field day with VA constant use of un-mentioned unobservable facets of his objective morality.

For example here also....
viewtopic.php?p=656775#p656775
is another unmentioned, unobservable something that forms the basis for moral choices and judgments on VA's part, but is never explained.

[Flannel Jesus]

And I think VA's position gets even weaker because he considers animals as completely incapable or morality. (in fact he goes beyond this to say that animals only have moral worth and CAN only have moral worth in terms of how they affect humans. Anyone thinking they can have a moral attitude about animals in and of themselves is confused according to VA)

But why do I say that his attitude about animals undermines his position as an antirealist around morality even more?

Well, animals have empathetic neural patterns. Animals display empathy, even across species. For example.

But these objective facts do not mean they have morals.

So there is some unobservable quality to human neurons that means that VA can conclude these neurons demonstate objective moral facts. Not facts, but moral facts.

Yeah, I would say it feels to me like VA started with his conclusions - human morality must be objective, but it doesn't extend to animals - and he's built all his arguments around supporting those conclusions. That's why they feel so inconsistent - because they're ad hoc.

I'd be much more interested in hearing thoughts that try to start from scratch(ish) instead of thoughts that are all built up to support a pre existing conclusion

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah, I would say it feels to me like VA started with his conclusions - human morality must be objective, but it doesn't extend to animals - and he's built all his arguments around supporting those conclusions. That's why they feel so inconsistent - because they're ad hoc.

I'd be much more interested in hearing thoughts that try to start from scratch(ish) instead of thoughts that are all built up to support a pre existing conclusion

I think this is very common. You have a belief and you are attached to it. (this is not always the case. perhaps it's a negative belief and you really would be happy to have it disproven). If it's not my parenthetical abstract exception, then you have two strong motivations, at least most people do, to hang onto your belief. The desire to be right about things is one. Whatever is attractive about the belief to you is two. There can be a third which is that even if a belief is neutral or you are not that attached to it, it may be part of how you organize your life. Or you might need to figure out something else. This could feel like (and even be) a loss of control, the experience of confusion or cognitive dissonance.

So, there's a very strong set of motivations to be right about one's belief.

So, we look for things to justify our belief.

I think that often, if not usually, these justifications are not how we came to the belief. Long before VA, for example, was talking about antirealism, he believed in objective morality.

So, yeah, there becomes this ad hoc process. Something (X) supports my position Y. So, I present X.
But last week I presented Z to support Y. And Z and X don't fit together. This leads to lots of mental gymnastics (unless one is capable of saying 'Ah, good point. Hm. Let me get back to you.'

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I think VA's position gets even weaker because he considers animals as completely incapable or morality. (in fact he goes beyond this to say that animals only have moral worth and CAN only have moral worth in terms of how they affect humans. Anyone thinking they can have a moral attitude about animals in and of themselves is confused according to VA)

But why do I say that his attitude about animals undermines his position as an antirealist around morality even more?

Well, animals have empathetic neural patterns. Animals display empathy, even across species. For example.

But these objective facts do not mean they have morals.

So there is some unobservable quality to human neurons that means that VA can conclude these neurons demonstate objective moral facts. Not facts, but moral facts.

Yeah, I would say it feels to me like VA started with his conclusions - human morality must be objective, but it doesn't extend to animals - and he's built all his arguments around supporting those conclusions. That's why they feel so inconsistent - because they're ad hoc.

I'd be much more interested in hearing thoughts that try to start from scratch(ish) instead of thoughts that are all built up to support a pre existing conclusion

'Feel' inconsistent, feel nothing objective?

You will not be able to find anything that is inconsistent with my views [if any will be very rare].
Show me where?

My view that Morality is objective is based on Kantian Morality [not 100%] which I had studied long long ago.

Why morality should not be extended to animals is because I like animal meat processed humanely.
In addition, I am well aware of the Jains stupidity in covering their mouth to avoid killing insects for the sake of compassion to all living things while being ignorant they are killing millions of living bacteria and virus every day.

[Flannel Jesus]

'Feel' inconsistent, feel nothing objective?

You will not be able to find anything that is inconsistent with my views [if any will be very rare].
Show me where?

We've been doing nothing but finding inconsistencies and showing you where. Just because you reject the criticisms doesn't mean they haven't been made or aren't actual problems with your ideas.

[Iwannaplato]

We've been doing nothing but finding inconsistencies and showing you where. Just because you reject the criticisms doesn't mean they haven't been made or aren't actual problems with your ideas.

And then the part you did not respond to...

Why morality should not be extended to animals is because I like animal meat processed humanely.

Apart from this sentence seeming to indicate he does think morality should be extended to animals, it seems like a confesstion that the roots of his meta-ethical position is subjective. I say meta-ethical or meta-moral because he has said that it is not a moral belief to be concerned about animals in and of themselves. That such concerns are outside morality. IOW not just outside his morality, but outside the realm of morality in general.

In addition, I am well aware of the Jains stupidity in covering their mouth to avoid killing insects for the sake of compassion to all living things while being ignorant they are killing millions of living bacteria and virus every day.

For irony, Buddhism also considers the killing of insects wrong. Despite what VA thinks is a complete argument against treating animals as ends and not just means in morality, he doesn't seem aware that one might think that some animals are sentient and feel pain in ways that bacteria and viruses do not. Or that one might want to minimize the pain one causes. Or a range of other positions that he seems not to consider possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Feel' inconsistent, feel nothing objective?

You will not be able to find anything that is inconsistent with my views [if any will be very rare].
Show me where?

We've been doing nothing but finding inconsistencies and showing you where. Just because you reject the criticisms doesn't mean they haven't been made or aren't actual problems with your ideas.

The reason why you think my views are inconsistent is basically due to a difference in the very contrasting perspective we are adopting;

Yours is Philosophical Realism [absolute mind independence]
Mine in Anti-PhilosophicalRealism

Because Philosophical Realism is an ideology that is driven by an evolutionary default thus very primal, proto and instinctual, it is very unlikely you will see the rationale in my arguments [which is more realistic].

I have demonstrated why we disagreed based on the above differences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you can't meet the burden of proof for the claim that no god can exist. And your claim that absolute perfection is the critical issue misses the mark completely.

It is the theists who claim God must be absolutely perfect.

• Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desc ... tological/

Ultimately God must necessary be supremely perfect or of absolute perfection.

But absolute perfection is impossible to be real [as defined in the OP].

Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Re above, how did my
"claim that absolute perfection is the critical issue misses the mark completely"?
You have not explain why?

[Iwannaplato]

Because Philosophical Realism is an ideology that is driven by an evolutionary default thus very primal, proto and instinctual, it is very unlikely you will see the rationale in my arguments [which is more realistic].

Ad hom.

I have demonstrated why we disagreed based on the above differences.

No, you haven't. Your responses often avoid parts of our posts. You repeat your assertions or link to threads where you also do not address points.

[Flannel Jesus]

'Feel' inconsistent, feel nothing objective?

You will not be able to find anything that is inconsistent with my views [if any will be very rare].
Show me where?

We've been doing nothing but finding inconsistencies and showing you where. Just because you reject the criticisms doesn't mean they haven't been made or aren't actual problems with your ideas.

The reason why you think my views are inconsistent is basically due to a difference in the very contrasting perspective we are adopting;

Yours is Philosophical Realism [absolute mind independence]
Mine in Anti-PhilosophicalRealism

Because Philosophical Realism is an ideology that is driven by an evolutionary default thus very primal, proto and instinctual, it is very unlikely you will see the rationale in my arguments [which is more realistic].

I have demonstrated why we disagreed based on the above differences.

No, that's ridiculous. There are plenty of ideas that exist in the world that I don't think are inconsistent. I might not think they are correct, but being incorrect is very different from being inconsistent. This just sounds like an excuse for your inconsistencies.