Objections to "It is Impossible for God to be Real"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re my thread;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, this argument is applicable to at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

Why God must be absolutely Perfect

• i. All humans are programmed with an innate unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible primal cognitive dissonance.
  ii. The critical task for all humans is to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
  iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

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 exists real.

While many had objected to my argument above and claimed they are successful, so far, no one has actually provided a convincing counter to my arguments.

The counter arguments are all over the thread mixed with off topic posts and thus not easy for my references.
Here are the few objections [presented roughly] to my thread; I have omitted those postings which are not relevant. If missed out any, do present your objections here.
If any feel I have not covered their points thoroughly, present your arguments more systematically, preferable open a new thread to justify your counter argument is valid and sound.

Iwannaplato
viewtopic.php?p=647900#p647900
IWP argued there are theists who accept their version of God is not absolutely perfect. This is a strawman as my argument do not apply to a God that is not absolutely perfect.
"Your proof doesn't even approach demonstrating that, say, an entity vastly different, vastly more powerful and intelligent, .. but not absolutely perfect"
One can speculate there are super intelligent human like [e.g. matrix sort] out there light years away, if it is empirically possible, my argument do not cover it.

Seeds
viewtopic.php?p=647910#p647910
To all of Seeds' argument, I responded;
"There are many causes that triggered people to experience what they "think' is God or they are the son-of-God; e.g. temporal epilepsy, various mental illness, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, stress, etc.
Your experience of God is more likely to be one of the above and DEFINITELY not that God is a real thing."

viewtopic.php?p=653339#p653339
VA: Your assumed God is merely an thought, i.e. an intelligible object, thus cannot be empirical. Since your thought-God is not empirical it is impossible and cannot be verified and justified as really real.

I directed Seed to this;
Listing of Causes in Experiencing God
viewtopic.php?t=40346
VA: The causes of people experiencing a divine presence identified as God is all in the brain. It is very likely why you insist God is real when God is merely an illusion is from one of the listed causes.

Seeds: And as always, you have "assumed" that just because God has not proven his (her/its) existence to you, that it is therefore impossible that God may have proven his (her/its) existence to others (like me, for example) ..through the trans-dimensional doorway ... [others do not have the qualifications to step tru that door]
And that is one of the primary reasons why any sort of irrefutable proof of life after death must be kept hidden from us.

VA: the above are all woo woo...

Bahman
viewtopic.php?p=648899#p648899
"Actually, I agree with you. But to complete your proof you need to show that P2 is correct!"
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

Bahman end with;
viewtopic.php?p=652968#p652968
I said what should have said. Perhaps someone else can help us.

Sculptor
viewtopic.php?p=652843#p652843
"Every single line in that (ahem!) "argument" is false."
The usual one-liner but provided no detailed counter argument.

Peter Homes
viewtopic.php?p=656177#p656177
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.

I countered the above
viewtopic.php?p=656338#p656338
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.

Subsequent exchanges - VA->PH
viewtopic.php?p=657061#p657061
Re above, how did my
"claim that absolute perfection is the critical issue misses the mark completely"?
You have not explain why?

PH keep insisting elsewhere that he have proven my argument to be fallacious but have not provided a solid argument to counter it.

So,
If any one feel I have not covered their points thoroughly, present your arguments more systematically, preferable open a new thread to justify your counter argument is valid and sound.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

Iwannaplato
viewtopic.php?p=647900#p647900
IWP argued there are theists who accept their version of God is not absolutely perfect. This is a strawman as my argument do not apply to a God that is not absolutely perfect.
"Your proof doesn't even approach demonstrating that, say, an entity vastly different, vastly more powerful and intelligent, .. but not absolutely perfect"
One can speculate there are super intelligent human like [e.g. matrix sort] out there light years away, if it is empirically possible, my argument do not cover it.

1) took one part of my argument
2) made a strawman out of it
3) and it seems conceded my point by saying.....

This is a strawman as my argument do not apply to a God that is not absolutely perfect.

For years you have been saying that theists have to believe in an absolutely perfect God. When I have provided examples of how this is not the case, you have never once conceded that they could believe in anything else. When I have shown you that even the Bible and thus Christians and Jews, iow Abrahamists can and do believe in fallible, cranky, and even a confused deity. You couldn not concede this.

When I have pointed out that the word perfect is, in this context, subjective, you haven't conceded that.

When I have pointed out that scriptures are not meant to be mathematical texts. If you think of the way old Kings were described using poetic language it might have sounded like people thought the kings could do all sorts of things they could not. Nevertheless you treat the language of scripture as if it is meant as a collection of scientific/mathematical assertions about the omni- characteristics of a deity.

When I am others have pointed out that concepts of absolute perfection can lead to paradoxes, and that many theists do not mean that God can destroy himself in the past so that he never existed. Or any of the other necessitated paradoxed of what can get batched into absolute perfection, no concessions there either.

I have seen you time and again in this forum and others tell theists what they must and do believe.

And now suddenly you call me out for having made a strawman, without acknowledging that you are suddenly conceding points, wihtout mentioning that you are, that theists and others have pointed out to you for years.

How absurdly transparent.

Fine if you never want to admit you were wrong about anything, because, as you said to Peter Holmes or me somewhere, you don't have to since the people you are arguing with are wrong. They are wrong so if one of your arguments or points or positions is wrong, you don't have to admit this because the others are wrong.

But don't mention my name and act like you've somehow countered something, when you haven't. It wasn't a strawman you've defended your position as applying to theists, in general period, and you even do it in the title of this thread and countless threads and argument in the past.

I doubt you consciously choose to lie, but we'd be fussing over details to call this anything other than a lie to save face.

It's not a strawman to criticize a premise, especially given the way you have always framed the issue as disproving the possible existence of God.

And when you make claims for all Abrahamists and have narrowed your focus, it is as if arguments haven't show this fails including when you encounter theists you are telling what they believe...

However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

These people do not remotely all frame their God as absolutely perfect in the sense you interpret this vague incredibly abstract evaluation.

It's you who has universalized a strawman.

You do this with great regularly. Tell people what they believe.

Now you are telling, in another thread, all philosophical realists that they cannot believe in objective morals.

It's really offensive the way you tell people what they believe. It's also silly.

You can point out that perhaps their beliefs entail X. But there are realists of all kinds who believe in moral realism. Moral realism, being, a well REALISM.

Your long fight with PH has distorted your view of the world. Anyone who disagrees with you has the same set of beliefs he has.

Any Abrahamist must belief YOUR intepretation of their sacred texts which you turn into odd scientific mathematical assertion texts.

And when you say no one has refuted you this actually means you still believe what you believe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Iwannaplato
viewtopic.php?p=647900#p647900
IWP argued there are theists who accept their version of God is not absolutely perfect. This is a strawman as my argument do not apply to a God that is not absolutely perfect.
"Your proof doesn't even approach demonstrating that, say, an entity vastly different, vastly more powerful and intelligent, .. but not absolutely perfect"
One can speculate there are super intelligent human like [e.g. matrix sort] out there light years away, if it is empirically possible, my argument do not cover it.

1) took one part of my argument
2) made a strawman out of it
3) and it seems conceded my point by saying.....

This is a strawman as my argument do not apply to a God that is not absolutely perfect.

For years you have been saying that theists have to believe in an absolutely perfect God. When I have provided examples of how this is not the case, you have never once conceded that they could believe in anything else. When I have shown you that even the Bible and thus Christians and Jews, iow Abrahamists can and do believe in fallible, cranky, and even a confused deity. You couldn not concede this.

It is my argument that 'ALL' theists have to believe in an absolutely perfect God [ultimate] due to the inherent existential crisis, else it is not effective.

But I have never claimed, ALL theists claimed their gods to be absolutely perfect.

When I am aware of the many Greek Gods, Apollo, Eros, Neptune and others;
The Full List of Greek Gods
and the thousands of 'imperfect' minor gods within Hinduism, Chinese Religions and elsewhere;
how can I ever claimed all theists believe in an absolutely perfect God?

Many Indian students prayed to the Goddess Saraswati [Knowledge] for success in their examinations, but they don't or need to claim she must be absolutely perfect.
It is the same with other gods prayed to bring rain, wealth, health, happiness, etc.
This is such a public and common knowledge that I did not bother to differentiate it in my earlier argument.. but only after it is evident it can be misunderstood by some nitpickers.

Point 1: What you have failed is recognizing the above differences.

When I have pointed out that the word perfect is, in this context, subjective, you haven't conceded that.

Upon the above point 1, why should I?

When I have pointed out that scriptures are not meant to be mathematical texts. If you think of the way old Kings were described using poetic language it might have sounded like people thought the kings could do all sorts of things they could not. Nevertheless you treat the language of scripture as if it is meant as a collection of scientific/mathematical assertions about the omni- characteristics of a deity.

I have never considered scriptures to be mathematic texts.
It is obvious in the scriptures of Christianity and Islam representing >4 billion theists, it is stipulated by God in their texts, God claims to be absolutely perfect. Each theist [explicit and implicit] do not want their God to be inferior to another God such that their assured hopes of eternal life in heaven can be thwarted by another more superior and perfect God.

When I am others have pointed out that concepts of absolute perfection can lead to paradoxes, and that many theists do not mean that God can destroy himself in the past so that he never existed. Or any of the other necessitated paradoxed of what can get batched into absolute perfection, no concessions there either.

What is there to concede when it is claimed by God in the holy texts God sent 'down' to Earth that God is absolutely perfect.
Show me wherein the Gospels [not whole Bible & OT*] and Quran that God has declared itself to be imperfect.
In Christianity, the OT is subrogated by the Gospels, i.e. confined to the words of Christ only.

I have seen you time and again in this forum and others tell theists what they must and do believe.

I have never do that.
What I did was to express what the God of Christianity, Islam claimed for itself, i.e. God is absolutely perfect. As for Hinduism's Brahman, I inferred from various relevant writings of Hinduism.

And now suddenly you call me out for having made a strawman, without acknowledging that you are suddenly conceding points, without mentioning that you are, that theists and others have pointed out to you for years.

See point 1 above why I made the strawman charge.

Falling into the 'many pointed .... out for years' is a childish excuse.
This is the reason why I raised this OP because many keep referring to what they have posted in that thread [messy and not easy to trace the specific argument] as the final word.

How absurdly transparent.

Fine if you never want to admit you were wrong about anything, because, as you said to Peter Holmes or me somewhere, you don't have to since the people you are arguing with are wrong. They are wrong so if one of your arguments or points or positions is wrong, you don't have to admit this because the others are wrong.

This is a serious charge that require specific references.
Somewhere? where?
If I had stated what you charged me for above, then I will admit I am stupid in that case.

But don't mention my name and act like you've somehow countered something, when you haven't. It wasn't a strawman you've defended your position as applying to theists, in general period, and you even do it in the title of this thread and countless threads and argument in the past.

I doubt you consciously choose to lie, but we'd be fussing over details to call this anything other than a lie to save face.

It's not a strawman to criticize a premise, especially given the way you have always framed the issue as disproving the possible existence of God.

A strawman is misrepresenting my argument to argue your point.
In the case of point 1. that is a strawman.

And when you make claims for all Abrahamists and have narrowed your focus, it is as if arguments haven't show this fails including when you encounter theists you are telling what they believe...

However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

These people do not remotely all frame their God as absolutely perfect in the sense you interpret this vague incredibly abstract evaluation.

It's you who has universalized a strawman.

You do this with great regularly. Tell people what they believe.

"Frame" that is exactly what I did thus FSK.
My absolute perfection claim for a certain God is based on the existential crisis.

• Why God must be absolutely Perfect
  i. All humans are programmed with an innate unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible primal cognitive dissonance.
  ii. The critical task for all humans is to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
  iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

Now you are telling, in another thread, all philosophical realists that they cannot believe in objective morals.

It's really offensive the way you tell people what they believe. It's also silly.

You can point out that perhaps their beliefs entail X. But there are realists of all kinds who believe in moral realism. Moral realism, being, a well REALISM.

Your long fight with PH has distorted your view of the world. Anyone who disagrees with you has the same set of beliefs he has.

Any Abrahamist must belief YOUR intepretation of their sacred texts which you turn into odd scientific mathematical assertion texts.

And when you say no one has refuted you this actually means you still believe what you believe.

Your interpreting of my discussion and debates as 'telling' is very 'telling' of your 'quickness in jumping to conclusion' and that wrong interpretation is very offensive and childish.

Whatever I posted here is supported by arguments and references, thus objective not a personal intent to 'tell' someone what to believe.
The onus is on the reader to debate the issues with their supporting arguments, it is silly to interpret that as being 'told'.

When I said, "no one has refuted my argument" I am expecting them to counter that with more solid arguments or point out where I have missed out their argument in that thread.
There is no need to be offended, just present your arguments or point out my omissions.

[Age]

The very reason WHY God is an impossibility to be real, to "veritas aequitas", is just and solely because "veritas aequitas" defines God in a way that makes 'It' an impossibility to be real.

[Age]

Now, what the word God, and ALL of 'Its' other derivatives, have been ACTUALLY MEANING, and have been ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, for the last couple or so millennia, from when this was being written, is JUST, what IS ACTUALLY EXISTING.

So, God, Itself, is in NO way an impossibility to be real as 'It' IS what IS ACTUALLY True and REAL right HERE, and right NOW.

[Age]

ANY and ALL 'objections' to "veritas aequitas", from 'me', have and do 'FALL ON DEAF EARS', as some say. And, even LITERALLY.

As "veritas aequitas" HAS SHOWN and PROVED over and over here.

"veritas aequitas" is in such a state of 'confirmation bias' here that 'it', LITERALLY, can NOT SEE, NOR HEAR, ANY 'objections' AGAINST 'its' OWN VIEWS and BELIEFS.

'it', LITERALLY, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY for 'it', can ONLY SEE and HEAR what 'it' ALREADY BELIEVES is true.

[seeds]

I have seen you time and again in this forum and others tell theists what they must and do believe.

I have never do that.

It is my argument that 'ALL' theists have to believe in an absolutely perfect God [ultimate] due to the inherent existential crisis, else it is not effective.

Whether it's a problem with your understanding and use of the English language (not being your native tongue), or a problem with your ability to process logic, or simply pure and intentional deceitfulness,...

...the bottom line is that the above quotes not only demonstrate the exasperating problem that your opponents are constantly being subjected to, but also why you will continue to receive the well-deserved "bashings" you mentioned in the following post you made nearly 4 years ago...

I am a veteran to philosophy forums. When I first started I was bashed left, right and center by those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument. I have learned my mistake and had taken steps to cover them to ensure there are no holes in my argument.

By "covering your mistakes" you seem to mean one (or all) of the following...

• 1. Ignore your mistakes.
  
  2. Never admit to or own your mistakes after they have been clearly pointed out to you.
  
  3. Keep repeating the same mistakes in new threads in the hope that by some miracle of mental alchemy they will be transformed into something that your opponents will eventually accept as valid.

In that same post, in a rare moment of candid honesty and self-reflection, you went on to say...

I am not perfect so there is still room for improvements.

Yes, little V, there is still room for improvements.

And by "improvements," it doesn't mean finding new and better ways of pretending that your egregious errors in logic don't exist, or by wearing down your opponents by repetitiously insisting that they show you how and where your arguments are flawed when they have already done so dozens of times in prior encounters with you.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have seen you time and again in this forum and others tell theists what they must and do believe.

I have never do that.

It is my argument that 'ALL' theists have to believe in an absolutely perfect God [ultimate] due to the inherent existential crisis, else it is not effective.

Whether it's a problem with your understanding and use of the English language (not being your native tongue), or a problem with your ability to process logic, or simply pure and intentional deceitfulness,...

...the bottom line is that the above quotes not only demonstrate the exasperating problem that your opponents are constantly being subjected to, but also why you will continue to receive the well-deserved "bashings" you mentioned in the following post you made nearly 4 years ago...

I am not perfect so there is still room for improvements.

Yes, little V, there is still room for improvements.

And by "improvements," it doesn't mean finding new and better ways of pretending that your egregious errors in logic don't exist, or by wearing down your opponents by repetitiously insisting that they show you how and where your arguments are flawed when they have already done so dozens of times in prior encounters with you.
_______

Instead of complaining and babbling why not put your effort to present any better argument from your previous ones in the other thread.

The fact that I raised a special thread to deal with objections show I am serious to get to the bottom of this argument 'Why God is Impossible to Exists as Real'.

So far, you have not been able to prove your claim convincing except shouting from personal experiences [which could be due to personal mental states] which is obviously subjective, thus, no credibility.

I am a veteran to philosophy forums. When I first started I was bashed left, right and center by those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument. I have learned my mistake and had taken steps to cover them to ensure there are no holes in my argument.

By "covering your mistakes" you seem to mean one (or all) of the following...

• 1. Ignore your mistakes.
  
  2. Never admit to or own your mistakes after they have been clearly pointed out to you.
  
  3. Keep repeating the same mistakes in new threads in the hope that by some miracle of mental alchemy they will be transformed into something that your opponents will eventually accept as valid.

In that same post, in a rare moment of candid honesty and self-reflection, you went on to say...

Seems???
You are really cheap in trying to be rhetorical.

I have a background in Eastern Philosophy and was a theist then [when I first started in forums] where my reading of Western Philosophy was solely Russells' History of Western Philosophy. Then my philosophy was indeed shallow, narrow and dogmatic, thus very vulnerable to be attacked by others like theists and analytics.

To ensure I am well armed and armored I have since then strive to acquire a deeper knowledge of Western Philosophy till the present, I have >16,000 files in 980 Folders in my Philosophy Directory.
If you think I have missed out anything significant [philosophy] let me know.

You seem to have been stuck dogmatically to that experienced of altered states [mentally] and have never expanded your range of knowledge since then.

I stated "to cover them to ensure there are no holes in my argument" as in the current case.

Show me if there are 'holes' in my argument 'It is impossible for God to exists as Real"?

[FlashDangerpants]

VA could win all of those debates he's chosen there and it would do him no good at all. His argument depends on natural limits (no perfect circle can be drawn in a universe of squiggly atoms and so on) and fallaciously applies them to supernatural entities.

The argument is of a structure that can never work, if he had basic competence he should have given up on it at least 5 years ago.

[promethean75]

"I have >16,000 files in 980 Folders"

That's 16.3 files per folder if the file distribution is the same for all folders.

[seeds]

Instead of complaining and babbling why not put your effort to present any better argument from your previous ones in the other thread.

What "other thread" are you talking about? Please provide a link.

Furthermore, that would be other thread(s), V, (as in plural), not thread, for there have been many.

Someday we're going to get you to learn when and when not to use the letter "s" at the end of certain words.

For example, instead of...

"...It is impossible for God to exists as real..."

...it would be more grammatically correct to say:

"...It is impossible for God to exist as real..."

Now, of course, both statements are unfalsifiable horse crap, but at least you would be expressing your fallacious nonsense with proper English grammar.

You seem to have been stuck dogmatically to that experienced [sic]* of altered states [mentally] and have never expanded your range of knowledge since then.

*Grammar lesson number 2: the correct word would be "experience" of altered states, not "experienced" of altered states. You're welcome.

And as usual, you don't even know what you are talking about, for regardless of their source cause, I have never fully revealed the details of the life-changing epiphanies I "experienced" back in 1969 and 1970.

What's that old Wittgenstein axiom?...something about one keeping silent about that which one (you) cannot accurately speak of?

In that same post, in a rare moment of candid honesty and self-reflection, you went on to say...

I am not perfect so there is still room for improvements.

Yes, little V, there is still room for improvements.

And by "improvements," it doesn't mean finding new and better ways of pretending that your egregious errors in logic don't exist, or by wearing down your opponents by repetitiously insisting that they show you how and where your arguments are flawed when they have already done so dozens of times in prior encounters with you.

Show me if there are 'holes' in my argument 'It is impossible for God to exists as Real"?

Good Gawd Almighty!

Really, V?!

Really?!!!
_______

[Atla]

"I have >16,000 files in 980 Folders"

That's 16.3 files per folder if the file distribution is the same for all folders.

At first, you might get the impression that VA is delusional and dumb as a rock, denser than a neutron star, and can't even follow the simplest logical inferences that even children would have no trouble with. But he's also absolutely persistent, undeterrable.

But the truth is that he read all those > 2479237498237 files in 185432871969 folders, and transcended to a level of existence infinitely beyond our comprehension. We simply don't understand his words.

[LuckyR]

Re my thread;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Why God must be absolutely Perfect

• i. All humans are programmed with an innate unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible primal cognitive dissonance.
  ii. The critical task for all humans is to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
  iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real ,
  
  So,
  If any one feel I have not covered their points thoroughly, present your arguments more systematically, preferable open a new thread to justify your counter argument is valid and sound.

Well that's a not unreasonable review of the psychological benefit of a "perfect god". Though when one throws around wording such as "must" and "impossible" it generally requires disproving any alternative rather than mere cataloguing benefits. And while it is common for modern humans to view perfection and godliness as synonymous, before the invention of Christianity, gods were routinely omni-nothing, merely stronger and more powerful than humans.

As to the "reality" of gods, you are correct that perfect gods are impossible, but as mentioned, imperfect gods (which, historically most gods are or more accurately: were) are entirely possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instead of complaining and babbling why not put your effort to present any better argument from your previous ones in the other thread.

What "other thread" are you talking about? Please provide a link.

Furthermore, that would be other thread(s), V, (as in plural), not thread, for there have been many.

Someday we're going to get you to learn when and when not to use the letter "s" at the end of certain words.
______

Thanks for the grammar lesson.
Is that the best you can do?

I admit my English grammar is not that good, but I don't think it is that bad leading to critical philosophical errors.
Normally, I cannot afford the time to double, triple, x-times check for grammar errors.
If anyone pointed out any grammatical errors, I will correct them.


The other thread [specific] I mentioned is
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

The other thread and other related threads are messed up with all sorts of postings.
If you are serious, I suggest you open a new thread specifically as YOUR Counter-arguments to my argument above and therein summarize your arguments with references to your other posts from the other threads.

I have covered experiences of altered states of consciousness [the good, the bad and the ugly] very extensively
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness
whatever ASC experiences you have not reported here is not likely to be extremely unique and exceptional.