New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

wrongly posted

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Not really.

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.

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].

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.


Alpha Centauri AB (left) forms a triple star system with Proxima Centauri, circled in red.

The claim of the existence of God as real is conditioned upon a human-based theological FSK, in your case, its the Christianity-FSK which provide NO direct empirical-rational evidence to support its claim. As such, relative to the science-FSK @ 100%, the objectivity of the theological FSK is 0.00000000___01% of objectivity and realness.

As I had proven;
It is Impossible for God to be Real [empirical-rationally]
viewtopic.php?t=40229

[Veritas Aequitas]

No "onus." I owe you nothing at all.

Not for me but for the sake of truth, philosophy and humanity.

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.

I believe you have some sort of subconscious fears in addressing my argument.

I have already provided the relevant supporting notes and explanations to my premises.

Here is an argument for P2 with details in the notes;

• 1. What is real must be conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK], e.g. the Scientific FSK.
  
  2. Absolute Perfection is a thought of an absolute unconditioned which is faith-based, thus not 1.
  
  3. Therefore, from the perspective of a human conditioned FSK, it is impossible for absolute Perfection to be real.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[Iwannaplato]

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 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___________________.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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 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___________________.

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.

Indirect or direct evidence in this case has nothing to do with realism [philosophical] versus antirealism.

A FSK by definition is solely anti-philosophical_realism because a FSK is human-based [non mind independent] that has nothing to do with philosophical realism which in mind-independent.
Thus my point re direct or indirect evidence has nothing to do with realism [philosophical] versus antirealism.

I'll skip this till it is raised in a relevant situation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I believe you have some sort of subconscious fears in addressing my argument.

It'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.

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."

Here's ChatGpt [with reservations] unbiased views on my argument;

• 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, but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality. Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

The above conditioned nature of reality refer to the dichotomy of Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism which I had refuted Philosophical Realism as untenable in many threads.

I believe you have some sort of subconscious fears in addressing my valid and sound argument.
Given the above, I don't expect you to counter my argument; in any case, there is no way you can refute my argument.
However, do not simply assert that there are no effective counter to the 'God exists' theory.

In addition, use ChatGpt for any questions you may have but note its limitations.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Absurd. I have no idea what you asked it, but whatever it was, it was clearly not something it was equipped to process.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

ChatGpt:
In summary, your argument is logically coherent,

It isn't, actually. In both structure and content, it fails.

but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality

Well, at least it found ONE of its at least four flaws.

Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Cliche. It's true of every argument.

Not impressed...not even a bit.

[attofishpi]

P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.

Veritas, what do you mean by "absolutely perfect"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.

Veritas, what do you mean by "absolutely perfect"?

see:
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

[attofishpi]

P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.

Veritas, what do you mean by "absolutely perfect"?

see:
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

Veritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".

Do you believe the universe is "absolutely perfect"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, what do you mean by "absolutely perfect"?

see:
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

Veritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".

Do you believe the universe is "absolutely perfect"?

The link is where I have explained in detailed what you want to know, i.e. what I meant by
"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.

[attofishpi]

see:
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

Veritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".

Do you believe the universe is "absolutely perfect"?

The link is where I have explained in detailed what you want to know, i.e. what I meant by
"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.

Hey, force me do the copy-paste to this thread then!-->

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?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, please don't post links, just explain what you mean by "absolutely perfect".

Do you believe the universe is "absolutely perfect"?

The link is where I have explained in detailed what you want to know, i.e. what I meant by
"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.

Hey, force me do the copy-paste to this thread then!-->

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?

The 'one-up' instinct is very evident among humans, especially it is so critical within theism.

If your god is accepted as imperfect [with imperfection], then that would leave room for other theists to claim their God is more perfect [absolutely perfect] than your God.
In that case, theist-X can claim his Absolutely perfect God can force your inferior less-perfect God to kiss his God's rat-arse, sodomize your God and dominate/own your God in every way.

If you claim [so easy, just believe it is so] your God is absolutely perfect and other theists are doing the same, then no God can dominate another.

If you don't give a rat arse re 'perfection' that is your discretion. It will be good for you as long as you are not driven psychologically into any 'one-up' war with another theist.

However, in general, Christians or Muslims would never accept their God is inferior to another.
In this case, both Christians and Muslims will claim their God is absolutely perfect [as stated in their holy texts] so their God cannot be inferior [less perfect] to the other.

If one's God is proven to be inferior or less perfect, then the believers' confidence of their God's ability to promise them eternal life in heaven or paradise with 72 virgins would be shaken.

To ensure their confidence of salvation is guaranteed, it is so easy, just believe one's God is absolutely perfect in every way so that no one can shake their faith in this case.