God is an Impossibility

[seeds]

In other words, what you are basically saying is that because humans are idiots, it therefore follows that God cannot be real.

Nope you got it wrong, and that is your strawman.
Note my syllogism is not a strawman,...

I don't know if you are purposely being dishonest, or simply incapable of properly interpreting the things you read, but I never said that your syllogism is a strawman. No, Veritas, I said that the contents of the following quote is a strawman...

...an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.

On the other hand, rather than being a strawman, your syllogism...

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

...(especially P2 and your C), is more akin to horse crap.

I did not misinterpret your proposition, rather I presented a valid and sound argument.

For the umpteenth time, Veritas, your arguments in defense of your thread premise are neither valid nor sound, they are strawmen.

The onus is on you to counter it.

I already countered it. But unfortunately, it was met with your inability to comprehend the flaw in your syllogism.

Your accusation itself that my syllogism is a strawman, is your strawman.

That's nothing more than a childish playground taunt that, once again, ignores the fact that I never said that your syllogism is a strawman (horse crap, yes, but not a strawman).

How about we settle this outside behind the gymnasium during recess?...



...(And just so there's no mistake, you're the one throwing the punch. )

My point is all humans has an inherent drive for perfection as driven by an inherent existential crisis.

Let me respond to your statement of all humans being afflicted with an "inherent existential crisis," by quoting a guy who once implied that he thinks his struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant. Here's what he said...

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Finally, something we can both agree on.

It is the existential crisis that drives the majority of humans to ultimately a perfect God.
If you don't claim a perfect God, then your God is an imperfect God which is vulnerable to be ridiculed by those who claim their God is perfect.

Seriously Veritas? After all of my ranting and raving about it, you're just going to keep on using that same old strawman argument with me?

When is it going to penetrate that thick skull of yours that the possibility of God being real is not dependent on anything humans think or claim?

Note this OP is merely the "final nail" to the coffin 'that God does not exist'.

Hallelujah!!!

Thanks to this thread and your little syllogism, we can all celebrate your banishing of that huge stinking elephant in the middle of the room that represents the mystery of how the unfathomable order of the universe came to be. For now we know for sure that blind and mindless "Chance" is the reason.



Congratulations, Veritas.

I even have one of my own illustrations that, from a slightly different perspective, also celebrates the glory and similar implications of your monumental achievement. Here it is...



Captions:

Tag line: "The professor inserts the "final equation" into his theory that proves, once and for all, that life is an accident and has no purpose."

Photographer: "Everybody say chaaaaaance."

Prof #1: "Splendid job professor, this is a proud moment!"

Prof #2 (seated): "I am very happy."

Prof #3: "Nobel Prize material for sure...an historic day for mankind!"

Rabbit: "Why are they smiling?"

Mouse: "Beats me."

Please let me know if you need me to explain the illustration's dark and dire meaning.

My whole series of my claim that 'It is impossible for a God to be real' rest upon the following;

• 1. Kant's justifications & 'proof' [philosophically] that God is a transcendental idea that is illusory which cannot be empirically real. [as in the whole of the CPR].
  
  2. Kant's justification & 'proof', it is impossible to prove the existence of the ontological, cosmological, physio-theological God. CPR B611 - B659.

It's probably just me and my silly attitude about things, but I cannot help but believe that it's wiser to stand on the shoulders of past giants in order to see what lies above and beyond them, as opposed to playing the role of an adoring little nephew who prefers to stay in a perpetual piggy-back ride with his hero, "Uncle Kant."

Uncle Kant says: "Little V, you just ignore that mean old Mr. seeds and only listen to me."

Little V: "Okay Uncle K, you're my bestest hero, cuz you know everything. Umm,....I think I pooed my pants."

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

In other words, what you are basically saying is that because humans are idiots, it therefore follows that God cannot be real.

Nope you got it wrong, and that is your strawman.
Note my syllogism is not a strawman,...

I don't know if you are purposely being dishonest, or simply incapable of properly interpreting the things you read, but I never said that your syllogism is a strawman. No, Veritas, I said that the contents of the following quote is a strawman...

...an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.

On the other hand, rather than being a strawman, your syllogism...

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

...(especially P2 and your C), is more akin to horse crap.

I did not misinterpret your proposition, rather I presented a valid and sound argument.

For the umpteenth time, Veritas, your arguments in defense of your thread premise are neither valid nor sound, they are strawmen.

You are making a lot of noises without much substance.
Re your challenge, I will accept, note I have martial arts background. In any case, resorting to violence indicates the inherent weakness in your intellectual and rational arguments.

I have substantiated my P2 in the OP and other threads.
You seem to be ignorant this is natural obvious with theologians like St. Anselm, Descartes and others?
The drive for one-upping is very inherent in human nature and to resolve that for all in the case of a God is to claim absoluteness, perfection, 'no other conceivable' and the likes.
I have also argued the pantheist and panentheistic God if not claimed with omni-whatever-good or perfection would be an idiotic and half-cooked God.

To get out from clinging to an illusion, I suggest you get on the 'know thyself' bandwagon into the deeper aspect of your psychology and human nature.

I wrote this another post;

My point is the existential crisis generate an unconscious cognitive dissonance which is vey painful for the person, the drive for those effected to seek consonance to soothe this unconscious pain.

The inherent cognitive dissonance comes in degrees from high to low.
Those with high degrees of cognitive dissonance will cling to a personal God, e.g. the Abrahamic God and the likes. As such those who have clung to such a god to soothe their terrible pains will even kill those who threaten their clinging to a god. [this is very evident]
Those with lesser degree of cognitive dissonance will cling to a pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic God and the likes [e.g. store-consciousness].

Those who are non-theistic will seek out drugs to soothe their terrible unconscious pains and sufferings. This is why drugs [pain killers and others] is such a serious problem all over the world.

[seeds]

For the umpteenth time, Veritas, your arguments in defense of your thread premise are neither valid nor sound, they are strawmen.

You are making a lot of noises without much substance.
Re your challenge, I will accept, note I have martial arts background. In any case, resorting to violence indicates the inherent weakness in your intellectual and rational arguments.

Oh dear, I guess we'll have to add "no sense of humor" to your list of personal foibles.

I have substantiated my P2 in the OP and other threads.

The only thing you have substantiated in regards to your P2 is your inability to understand the flaw in your reasoning. That, and your Herculean stubbornness in clinging to a debunked thread premise.

You seem to be ignorant this is natural obvious with theologians like St. Anselm, Descartes and others?

Care to reword that sentence (that question?) so that one might understand what you're getting at?

In the meantime, seeing how you brought up the subject of ignorance, it is quite obvious that you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that others may have had life experiences that have led them to different conclusions than you regarding the nature of reality.

Furthermore (and in an alternate take on the Dunning-Kruger Effect), you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that you are sleepwalking through life, and are thus not awake enough to realize that you are not awake enough to realize the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

The drive for one-upping is very inherent in human nature...

Yes, and that drive is quite evident in you, Veritas (along with most everyone else who participates in this forum). And the question is: So what? For it seems to be part of the game we're all playing here.

I have also argued the pantheist and panentheistic God if not claimed with omni-whatever-good or perfection would be an idiotic and half-cooked God.

First of all, pantheism and panentheism are worlds apart in their ontological implications.

And secondly, as per my reference to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you just don't get it, Veritas.

In other words, you just don't understand that if the universe truly is the mind of a higher Being (as is depicted in my over-used illustrations),...




...then the level of consciousness and creative abilities of this higher Being would make us humans seem like amoebas in comparison. And thus, all of our "amoeba-ish" ponderings and conclusions regarding the true nature and motives of this higher Being...

(as in whether or not he/she/it meets our "omni-this" or "omni-that" expectations)

...don't amount to anything more than us amoebas flittering around in our petri dish and making miniscule waves in our suspension medium.

And if that strange metaphorical scenario sounds silly to you, it's because, again, you (my fellow sleepwalking amoeba) are simply not awake enough to understand where I'm coming from.

To get out from clinging to an illusion, I suggest you get on the 'know thyself' bandwagon into the deeper aspect of your psychology and human nature.

Ah yes, there's nothing like throwing some tired old philosophical platitude at me ("know thyself") to put me in my place.

Really, Veritas? What's next, "carpe diem"?

The point is that you might want to leave the use of such worn-out clichés to all of those bored college professors who are forced to teach introductory level philosophy to the freshman neophytes.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have substantiated my P2 in the OP and other threads.

The only thing you have substantiated in regards to your P2 is your inability to understand the flaw in your reasoning. That, and your Herculean stubbornness in clinging to a debunked thread premise.

So far you have not argued against my P2 at all.
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
I have already given you reference for example, St. Anselm & Descartes.

You seem to be ignorant this is natural and obvious tendency with theologians like St. Anselm, Descartes and others?

Care to reword that sentence (that question?) so that one might understand what you're getting at?

In the meantime, seeing how you brought up the subject of ignorance, it is quite obvious that you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that others may have had life experiences that have led them to different conclusions than you regarding the nature of reality.

Furthermore (and in an alternate take on the Dunning-Kruger Effect), you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that you are sleepwalking through life, and are thus not awake enough to realize that you are not awake enough to realize the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

Making noises again.

St. Anselm & Descartes were naturally inclined to conclude with a perfect God of omni-whatever-good which do not allow any one to have the upper hand on them.
Your sort of panentheistic and the pantheistic God of others are thus logically condemn as idiotic God relative to the ontological all perfect God.
Btw, to me God is impossible to be real, but if others need to think of a God, rationally one should think of an omni-whatever-good God, why settle for an inferior imperfect God?

Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.
Thus I am well aware of how a sense of 'spirituality' manifest in different people, different inclinations via different ways; other than normal approaches, drugs, mental illness, brain damage, etc. can also induce the 'spiritual' neural correlate in the human brain.

Your sorts of spiritual experiences type is similar [not exactly] to "attofishpi" and I have come across tons of people of your likes re spirituality.

The drive for one-upping is very inherent in human nature...

Yes, and that drive is quite evident in you, Veritas (along with most everyone else who participates in this forum). And the question is: So what? For it seems to be part of the game we're all playing here.

Yes I am inclined with one-upping knowledge which is evident in the history of human knowledge and progress. What is critical here is whatever is claimed to be better than the prior must be verifiable and justifiable empirically.

In your case you are settling for less [imperfect God] without good reasons.

I have also argued the pantheist and panentheistic God if not claimed with omni-whatever-good or perfection would be an idiotic and half-cooked God.

First of all, pantheism and panentheism are worlds apart in their ontological implications.

Pantheism and panentheism are different from theism but they are still ontological in a more subtler sense.

.. you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that you are sleepwalking through life, and are thus not awake enough to realize that you are not awake enough to realize the depth and degree of your somnambulism.
And secondly, as per my reference to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you just don't get it, Veritas.

You are talking from ignorance about me. I started spirituality very young [Vedanta] long ago and have had all sort of 'spiritual' experiences, e.g. cosmic consciousness, god consciousness, spiritual highs, etc. The first thing one's meditation teacher warn is not to be attached to whatever one experiences. Since then I have graduated to other spiritual practices on a eclectic approach.

Regardless of "Dunning-Kruger Effect" or not, what one proposed must be logical, sound, valid and ultimately verifiable and justifiable empirically.

In other words, you just don't understand that if the universe truly is the mind of a higher Being (as is depicted in my over-used illustrations),...

...then the level of consciousness and creative abilities of this higher Being would make us humans seem like amoebas in comparison. And thus, all of our "amoeba-ish" ponderings and conclusions regarding the true nature and motives of this higher Being...

(as in whether or not he/she/it meets our "omni-this" or "omni-that" expectations)

...don't amount to anything more than us amoebas flittering around in our petri dish and making miniscule waves in our suspension medium.

And if that strange metaphorical scenario sounds silly to you, it's because, again, you (my fellow sleepwalking amoeba) are simply not awake enough to understand where I'm coming from.

Point is there is no thing-in-itself [Kantian] so there is no 'higher_being-in-itself'.
There is no way you can prove it empirically nor it is empirically possible.
What remains is your subjective perceptions and feelings that such a thing is real [to you only].

To get out from clinging to an illusion, I suggest you get on the 'know thyself' bandwagon into the deeper aspect of your psychology and human nature.

Ah yes, there's nothing like throwing some tired old philosophical platitude at me ("know thyself") to put me in my place.

Really, Veritas? What's next, "carpe diem"?

The point is that you might want to leave the use of such worn-out clichés to all of those bored college professors who are forced to teach introductory level philosophy to the freshman neophytes.
_______

You don't my point.

I have proven 'God is an impossibility to be real'
to reinforce the point I am proving arguments why theists, panentheists, pantheists and other theo-ists insist God is really real in the absolute sense.

What I am doing is nothing new.
The Buddhists had been doing it for 2500 years and the vedic-atheists longer than that.
Kant then came along to make the anti-theist argument more systematic.

[attofishpi]

I have proven 'God is an impossibility to be real'
to reinforce the point I am proving arguments why theists, panentheists, pantheists and other theo-ists insist God is really real in the absolute sense.

You have proven Fuck All.

In fact, if indeed you could or did prove God does not exist, you wouldn't be pissing around here on a forum. You would have a book written, and perhaps even have a won a Nobel prize in Physics.

Sadly, you are just a waffling moron.

[Belinda]

There are not only two alternatives, God or accident. There are three alternatives, God, accident, or order that , unlike God, has no final purpose.

People on this forum are mostly like the father of the boy in Mark's Gospel;
Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

Jesus' code of morality is available to people who put love of wisdom higher than love of faith.

[seeds]

The only thing you have substantiated in regards to your P2 is your inability to understand the flaw in your reasoning. That, and your Herculean stubbornness in clinging to a debunked thread premise.

So far you have not argued against my P2 at all.
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect.

Are you completely insane, or what? Of course I have argued against your P2. Indeed, as part of my rebuttal I even cited the words of the forum's leading expert on your P2 statement. Here they are again...

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Are you going to suggest that the words of my expert witness are not to be trusted? Or perhaps only apply to others and not to himself?

I have already given you reference for example, St. Anselm & Descartes.

Yes, Veritas, I'm well aware of the fact that your incessant habit of "appealing to authority" (especially Kant) is the bedrock of your method of argumentation.

...seeing how you brought up the subject of ignorance, it is quite obvious that you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that others may have had life experiences that have led them to different conclusions than you regarding the nature of reality.

Furthermore (and in an alternate take on the Dunning-Kruger Effect), you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that you are sleepwalking through life, and are thus not awake enough to realize that you are not awake enough to realize the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

Making noises again.

Yes, I suppose that much of what I am saying would seem like noise to you...

Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.

Ah yes, when all else fails, and in keeping with your habit of appealing to authority as your go-to method of argumentation,...

...start bragging about your alleged (and mostly self-taught) curriculum vitae and then appeal to the authority of your own biased assumptions.

Yes I am inclined with one-upping knowledge which is evident in the history of human knowledge and progress.

Wait, I need to start making a formal list of all of your self-aggrandizing assertions (I'll just start from the last few posts because the full list would take up too much room):

• 1. Note I have martial arts background.
  2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.
  3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.
  4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.
  5. Soon to be announced...

...The first thing one's meditation teacher warn is not to be attached to whatever one experiences....

Well, clearly, you have failed miserably in heeding that warning, for I have never seen anyone more attached to the blathering's of a particular human than you are to the Kantian screed.

I have proven 'God is an impossibility to be real.

Again, Veritas, as I pointed out earlier, all you have proven (substantiated) is your dogged stubbornness in refusing to let go of your debunked premise...



(Sorry everyone, it's just that I'm a big fan of visual aids, and if nothing else, some of these gifs are hilarious. )

Now with that being said, if you are literally never - ever - going to let go of your claim that you have proven (empirically) that God is an impossibility, that's fine, for we're all free to believe anything we wish.

However, if you truly want to ensure that God's coffin is sealed - good and tight - and impossible for him to claw his way out of, then all you have to do now is to provide empirically verifiable proof of how the blind and mindless processes of chance created the unfathomable order of the universe.

And to understand where I'm coming from with that vital addendum to your argument, see my post to Belinda in an alternate thread: viewtopic.php?p=537221#p537221
_______

[Age]

In other words, what you are basically saying is that because humans are idiots, it therefore follows that God cannot be real.

Nope you got it wrong, and that is your strawman.
Note my syllogism is not a strawman,...

I don't know if you are purposely being dishonest, or simply incapable of properly interpreting the things you read, but I never said that your syllogism is a strawman. No, Veritas, I said that the contents of the following quote is a strawman...

...an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.

On the other hand, rather than being a strawman, your syllogism...

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

...(especially P2 and your C), is more akin to horse crap.

I did not misinterpret your proposition, rather I presented a valid and sound argument.

For the umpteenth time, Veritas, your arguments in defense of your thread premise are neither valid nor sound, they are strawmen.

The onus is on you to counter it.

I already countered it. But unfortunately, it was met with your inability to comprehend the flaw in your syllogism.

Your accusation itself that my syllogism is a strawman, is your strawman.

That's nothing more than a childish playground taunt that, once again, ignores the fact that I never said that your syllogism is a strawman (horse crap, yes, but not a strawman).

How about we settle this outside behind the gymnasium during recess?...



...(And just so there's no mistake, you're the one throwing the punch. )

My point is all humans has an inherent drive for perfection as driven by an inherent existential crisis.

Let me respond to your statement of all humans being afflicted with an "inherent existential crisis," by quoting a guy who once implied that he thinks his struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant. Here's what he said...

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Finally, something we can both agree on.

It is the existential crisis that drives the majority of humans to ultimately a perfect God.
If you don't claim a perfect God, then your God is an imperfect God which is vulnerable to be ridiculed by those who claim their God is perfect.

Seriously Veritas? After all of my ranting and raving about it, you're just going to keep on using that same old strawman argument with me?

When is it going to penetrate that thick skull of yours that the possibility of God being real is not dependent on anything humans think or claim?

Note this OP is merely the "final nail" to the coffin 'that God does not exist'.

Hallelujah!!!

Thanks to this thread and your little syllogism, we can all celebrate your banishing of that huge stinking elephant in the middle of the room that represents the mystery of how the unfathomable order of the universe came to be. For now we know for sure that blind and mindless "Chance" is the reason.



Congratulations, Veritas.

I even have one of my own illustrations that, from a slightly different perspective, also celebrates the glory and similar implications of your monumental achievement. Here it is...



Captions:

Tag line: "The professor inserts the "final equation" into his theory that proves, once and for all, that life is an accident and has no purpose."

Photographer: "Everybody say chaaaaaance."

Prof #1: "Splendid job professor, this is a proud moment!"

Prof #2 (seated): "I am very happy."

Prof #3: "Nobel Prize material for sure...an historic day for mankind!"

Rabbit: "Why are they smiling?"

Mouse: "Beats me."

Please let me know if you need me to explain the illustration's dark and dire meaning.

Will you please explain the illustration's dark and dire meaning, from your perspective?

My whole series of my claim that 'It is impossible for a God to be real' rest upon the following;

• 1. Kant's justifications & 'proof' [philosophically] that God is a transcendental idea that is illusory which cannot be empirically real. [as in the whole of the CPR].
  
  2. Kant's justification & 'proof', it is impossible to prove the existence of the ontological, cosmological, physio-theological God. CPR B611 - B659.

It's probably just me and my silly attitude about things, but I cannot help but believe that it's wiser to stand on the shoulders of past giants in order to see what lies above and beyond them, as opposed to playing the role of an adoring little nephew who prefers to stay in a perpetual piggy-back ride with his hero, "Uncle Kant."

Uncle Kant says: "Little V, you just ignore that mean old Mr. seeds and only listen to me."

Little V: "Okay Uncle K, you're my bestest hero, cuz you know everything. Umm,....I think I pooed my pants."

_______

[Age]

In other words, what you are basically saying is that because humans are idiots, it therefore follows that God cannot be real.

Nope you got it wrong, and that is your strawman.
Note my syllogism is not a strawman,...

I don't know if you are purposely being dishonest, or simply incapable of properly interpreting the things you read, but I never said that your syllogism is a strawman. No, Veritas, I said that the contents of the following quote is a strawman...

...an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.

On the other hand, rather than being a strawman, your syllogism...

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

...(especially P2 and your C), is more akin to horse crap.

I did not misinterpret your proposition, rather I presented a valid and sound argument.

For the umpteenth time, Veritas, your arguments in defense of your thread premise are neither valid nor sound, they are strawmen.

The onus is on you to counter it.

I already countered it. But unfortunately, it was met with your inability to comprehend the flaw in your syllogism.

Your accusation itself that my syllogism is a strawman, is your strawman.

That's nothing more than a childish playground taunt that, once again, ignores the fact that I never said that your syllogism is a strawman (horse crap, yes, but not a strawman).

How about we settle this outside behind the gymnasium during recess?...



...(And just so there's no mistake, you're the one throwing the punch. )

My point is all humans has an inherent drive for perfection as driven by an inherent existential crisis.

Let me respond to your statement of all humans being afflicted with an "inherent existential crisis," by quoting a guy who once implied that he thinks his struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant. Here's what he said...

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Finally, something we can both agree on.

It is the existential crisis that drives the majority of humans to ultimately a perfect God.
If you don't claim a perfect God, then your God is an imperfect God which is vulnerable to be ridiculed by those who claim their God is perfect.

Seriously Veritas? After all of my ranting and raving about it, you're just going to keep on using that same old strawman argument with me?

When is it going to penetrate that thick skull of yours that the possibility of God being real is not dependent on anything humans think or claim?

Note this OP is merely the "final nail" to the coffin 'that God does not exist'.

Hallelujah!!!

Thanks to this thread and your little syllogism, we can all celebrate your banishing of that huge stinking elephant in the middle of the room that represents the mystery of how the unfathomable order of the universe came to be. For now we know for sure that blind and mindless "Chance" is the reason.



Congratulations, Veritas.

I even have one of my own illustrations that, from a slightly different perspective, also celebrates the glory and similar implications of your monumental achievement. Here it is...



Captions:

Tag line: "The professor inserts the "final equation" into his theory that proves, once and for all, that life is an accident and has no purpose."

Photographer: "Everybody say chaaaaaance."

Prof #1: "Splendid job professor, this is a proud moment!"

Prof #2 (seated): "I am very happy."

Prof #3: "Nobel Prize material for sure...an historic day for mankind!"

Rabbit: "Why are they smiling?"

Mouse: "Beats me."

Please let me know if you need me to explain the illustration's dark and dire meaning.

Will you please explain the illustration's dark and dire meaning, from your perspective?

My whole series of my claim that 'It is impossible for a God to be real' rest upon the following;

• 1. Kant's justifications & 'proof' [philosophically] that God is a transcendental idea that is illusory which cannot be empirically real. [as in the whole of the CPR].
  
  2. Kant's justification & 'proof', it is impossible to prove the existence of the ontological, cosmological, physio-theological God. CPR B611 - B659.

It's probably just me and my silly attitude about things, but I cannot help but believe that it's wiser to stand on the shoulders of past giants in order to see what lies above and beyond them, as opposed to playing the role of an adoring little nephew who prefers to stay in a perpetual piggy-back ride with his hero, "Uncle Kant."

Uncle Kant says: "Little V, you just ignore that mean old Mr. seeds and only listen to me."

Little V: "Okay Uncle K, you're my bestest hero, cuz you know everything. Umm,....I think I pooed my pants."

_______

[Age]

In other words, what you are basically saying is that because humans are idiots, it therefore follows that God cannot be real.

Nope you got it wrong, and that is your strawman.
Note my syllogism is not a strawman,...

I don't know if you are purposely being dishonest, or simply incapable of properly interpreting the things you read, but I never said that your syllogism is a strawman. No, Veritas, I said that the contents of the following quote is a strawman...

...an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.

On the other hand, rather than being a strawman, your syllogism...

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

...(especially P2 and your C), is more akin to horse crap.

I did not misinterpret your proposition, rather I presented a valid and sound argument.

For the umpteenth time, Veritas, your arguments in defense of your thread premise are neither valid nor sound, they are strawmen.

You are making a lot of noises without much substance.
Re your challenge, I will accept, note I have martial arts background. In any case, resorting to violence indicates the inherent weakness in your intellectual and rational arguments.

And, one mentioning that they have a 'martial' arts background indicates the inherent insecurity, and how much low self-esteem, they have about "them" 'self'.

I have substantiated my P2 in the OP and other threads.

Who do you BELIEVE you have so-called "substantiated" this thing here to, EXACTLY?

And, is there ANY one who does say that a definition of God is that God is NOT perfect?

If yes, then REALLY? And, what are they basing that definition on, EXACTLY?

You seem to be ignorant this is natural obvious with theologians like St. Anselm, Descartes and others?
The drive for one-upping is very inherent in human nature and to resolve that for all in the case of a God is to claim absoluteness, perfection, 'no other conceivable' and the likes.
I have also argued the pantheist and panentheistic God if not claimed with omni-whatever-good or perfection would be an idiotic and half-cooked God.

To get out from clinging to an illusion, I suggest you get on the 'know thyself' bandwagon into the deeper aspect of your psychology and human nature.

I wrote this another post;

My point is the existential crisis generate an unconscious cognitive dissonance which is vey painful for the person, the drive for those effected to seek consonance to soothe this unconscious pain.

For those who are NOT YET AWARE this is EXACTLY what "veritas aequitas" went through, and "veritas aequitas", unfortunately and incorrectly, now BELIEVES that EVERY human being also goes through this AS WELL.

Contrary to what "veritas aequitas" BELIEVES here is ABSOLUTELY True, NOT EVERY one goes through this AT ALL.

The inherent cognitive dissonance comes in degrees from high to low.
Those with high degrees of cognitive dissonance will cling to a personal God, e.g. the Abrahamic God and the likes. As such those who have clung to such a god to soothe their terrible pains will even kill those who threaten their clinging to a god. [this is very evident]
Those with lesser degree of cognitive dissonance will cling to a pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic God and the likes [e.g. store-consciousness].

Those who are non-theistic will seek out drugs to soothe their terrible unconscious pains and sufferings. This is why drugs [pain killers and others] is such a serious problem all over the world.

LOL.

AND, those like "veritas aequitas" are with these so-called "terrible unconscious pains and sufferings, resort to religion, take drugs, or are PERFECT. Well according to "veritas aequitas" "logic" anyway.

Now;

1. 'you', "veritas aequitas" have removed your religious clinging tendencies, so do you now take drugs?

2. How, EXACTLY, does one feel these so-called "terrible pains and sufferings" if they are, supposedly, 'unconscious' of them ANYWAY?

[Age]

There are not only two alternatives, God or accident. There are three alternatives, God, accident, or order that , unlike God, has no final purpose.

People on this forum are mostly like the father of the boy in Mark's Gospel;
Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

Jesus' code of morality is available to people who put love of wisdom higher than love of faith.

Do God and accident HAVE TO BE 'alternatives'?

Can they NOT BOTH co-exist, together?

[Age]

The only thing you have substantiated in regards to your P2 is your inability to understand the flaw in your reasoning. That, and your Herculean stubbornness in clinging to a debunked thread premise.

So far you have not argued against my P2 at all.
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect.

Are you completely insane, or what? Of course I have argued against your P2. Indeed, as part of my rebuttal I even cited the words of the forum's leading expert on your P2 statement. Here they are again...

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Are you going to suggest that the words of my expert witness are not to be trusted? Or perhaps only apply to others and not to himself?

I have already given you reference for example, St. Anselm & Descartes.

Yes, Veritas, I'm well aware of the fact that your incessant habit of "appealing to authority" (especially Kant) is the bedrock of your method of argumentation.

...seeing how you brought up the subject of ignorance, it is quite obvious that you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that others may have had life experiences that have led them to different conclusions than you regarding the nature of reality.

Furthermore (and in an alternate take on the Dunning-Kruger Effect), you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that you are sleepwalking through life, and are thus not awake enough to realize that you are not awake enough to realize the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

Making noises again.

Yes, I suppose that much of what I am saying would seem like noise to you...

Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.

Ah yes, when all else fails, and in keeping with your habit of appealing to authority as your go-to method of argumentation,...

...start bragging about your alleged (and mostly self-taught) curriculum vitae and then appeal to the authority of your own biased assumptions.

Yes I am inclined with one-upping knowledge which is evident in the history of human knowledge and progress.

Wait, I need to start making a formal list of all of your self-aggrandizing assertions (I'll just start from the last few posts because the full list would take up too much room):

• 1. Note I have martial arts background.
  2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.
  3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.
  4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.
  5. Soon to be announced...

...The first thing one's meditation teacher warn is not to be attached to whatever one experiences....

Well, clearly, you have failed miserably in heeding that warning, for I have never seen anyone more attached to the blathering's of a particular human than you are to the Kantian screed.

I have proven 'God is an impossibility to be real.

Again, Veritas, as I pointed out earlier, all you have proven (substantiated) is your dogged stubbornness in refusing to let go of your debunked premise...



(Sorry everyone, it's just that I'm a big fan of visual aids, and if nothing else, some of these gifs are hilarious. )

Now with that being said, if you are literally never - ever - going to let go of your claim that you have proven (empirically) that God is an impossibility, that's fine, for we're all free to believe anything we wish.

However, if you truly want to ensure that God's coffin is sealed - good and tight - and impossible for him to claw his way out of, then all you have to do now is to provide empirically verifiable proof of how the blind and mindless processes of chance created the unfathomable order of the universe.

But the 'order' of the Universe is NOT 'unfathomable'.

In fact, the ACTUAL 'order' of the Universe has ALREADY been 'fathomed'.

And to understand where I'm coming from with that vital addendum to your argument, see my post to Belinda in an alternate thread: viewtopic.php?p=537221#p537221
_______

Now we can SEE WHERE and WHY 'you' are STILL SO CONFUSED and LOST "seeds".

[Veritas Aequitas]

..................

All your above are noises without substantial rational arguments.

I have claimed the bolded point 1-3 but NOT your 'cheating and deceptive' 4 is your dirty invention, i.e.

• 4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.

As for relying 'authority,' [rationally not blindly] don't you know that is an imperative requirement for knowledge. You are ignorant of the phrase?
Standing on the shoulders of giants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_ ... _of_giants
When you read serious books and articles on philosophy or any other knowledge, you will note the authors will list necessary and up to a 100+ of references in the Bibliography. Even the great Kant referred to his predecessors.

Now with that being said, if you are literally never - ever - going to let go of your claim that you have proven (empirically) that God is an impossibility, that's fine, for we're all free to believe anything we wish.

However, if you truly want to ensure that God's coffin is sealed - good and tight - and impossible for him to claw his way out of, then all you have to do now is to provide empirically verifiable proof of how the blind and mindless processes of chance created the unfathomable order of the universe.

And to understand where I'm coming from with that vital addendum to your argument, see my post to Belinda in an alternate thread: viewtopic.php?p=537221#p537221
_______

Your problem is you are driven by the inherent cognitive dissonance to be a hardcore dogmatist to defend and maintain the current state of consonance you have to avoid the inherent pains and sufferings. This make you ignorant and resistant to other perspectives which are more realistic.

Why and how we are what we are at present, e.g. the unfathomable order of the universe is based on an algorithm [biological] that was "programmed' and continually in progress since >4 billion years ago that is now embedded in our DNA/RNA.
Within this overall algorithm we have sub-routines for pattern recognition, knowledge, wisdom, etc. that is connected to the pleasure or pain sub-routine.

When we see a scene like the one in your linked, the pleasure sub-routine is triggered with pleasure and awe which imply there is 'harmony' and a good fitness for living.
In contrast if you see a tsunami, earthquakes and other catastrophe, then the pain algorithm is triggered with the fear emotions to avoid such environment [not fit for living] and to seek better grounds for living.

In the past [even now] if one is cornered and cannot escape from a certain threat of survival [e.g. tsunami, earthquakes and other catastrophe] they would invoked and called on some sort of higher power [deity of sort] to help them to be saved and that was all they could do. Some trust their entities of higher power so much that they will not seek any possible escape route, so they die instead.

Now, what about when the ignorant masses as self-conscious humans [a default of human nature] are aware of the certainty of death which trigger a cognitive dissonance and terrible pains and there is no way to run away nor escape from?

You should research on what was going on throughout the history of mankind to note what they have been doing to escape from this inevitability of mortality.
In eons ago some smart alecs resorted to mummification and elaborate tombs with the hope they will go into another world, but we know such are foolish hopes.
Others has resort to all sorts of ways to continue living after the inevitable physical death.

Then viola! not too long ago say 5000 years ago some smart alecs invented the idea of a soul which God [albeit crude ones] who could assured them of eternal life in heaven believing in such a god give instant consonance of relief to the inherent cognitive dissonance. Since this is adaptive such a theistic belief had stayed to the present. That is why 80% of humanity are theists.

But such a God is subject to critiques of inferiority in other aspects; so there is the need for greater superiority to give them 100% assurance and certainty especially in dealing with such terrible pains and sufferings.
So with the natural one-upping, the idea of God culminated in a omni-whatever-good God which no one an one-up further thus guaranteeing the consonance is sustained.
One point is such a God is also be claimed to be reinforced by direct personal experiences of such a God which is actually delusional as proven.

However a personal omni-whatever-good God is still subject to various critiques, thus we have the deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic and the likes to avoid the negativities from a personal God.
This is where your belief of an impersonal God comes in, but it is still grounded on the problem of a cognitive dissonance and relieved by the arising consonance. You are not aware of such events because they occur at very subliminal levels of the brain/mind.

Such an impersonal god is not an issue to humanity [contrast to Islam & certain negatives of the Christian God] but your short-comings is you rejected the "omni-whatever-good" element that would give you full cover for free and no incumbrances nor liabilities.

Nevertheless whatever the 'God' it is an illusory thing and its consistent belief is delusional.

Note the understanding of the above re the need for a God to relieve sufferings and pains had been done away with >2500 [via Buddhism] to 5000 [vedic non-theism - Āstika and nāstika] years ago.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have proven 'God is an impossibility to be real'
to reinforce the point I am proving arguments why theists, panentheists, pantheists and other theo-ists insist God is really real in the absolute sense.

You have proven Fuck All.

In fact, if indeed you could or did prove God does not exist, you wouldn't be pissing around here on a forum. You would have a book written, and perhaps even have a won a Nobel prize in Physics.

Sadly, you are just a waffling moron.

This is evidence for proof that one's consonance to cognitive dissonance is threatened thus the outbursts.

In the extreme those who are threat to theistic consonance are killed by lynching mobs even with the slightest tinge of a apparent threat, e.g. drawing of cartoons.

Note the recent;

Pakistan: Killing of Sri Lankan accused of blasphemy sparks protests
https://www.bbc.com/news/59501368

[attofishpi]

I have proven 'God is an impossibility to be real'
to reinforce the point I am proving arguments why theists, panentheists, pantheists and other theo-ists insist God is really real in the absolute sense.

You have proven Fuck All.

In fact, if indeed you could or did prove God does not exist, you wouldn't be pissing around here on a forum. You would have a book written, and perhaps even have a won a Nobel prize in Physics.

Sadly, you are just a waffling moron.

This is evidence for proof that one's consonance to cognitive dissonance is threatened thus the outbursts.

Nah, it's just pointing out a wanker when one continuously posts statements worthy of a Noble prize in wankery.

In the extreme those who are threat to theistic consonance are killed by lynching mobs even with the slightest tinge of a apparent threat, e.g. drawing of cartoons.

Note the recent;

Pakistan: Killing of Sri Lankan accused of blasphemy sparks protests
https://www.bbc.com/news/59501368

Why don't you move over there and prove to them that their God does not exist, in the least you might be able to explain to them them that God loves to have the piss taking out of 'himself', cos he's got a great sense of humour - after all, he created it..


Hey, do you realise this thread has had 61234 views - if you subtract all the times you viewed thus increasing the tally, and subtracted that, that would leave the exact number of people that are really really bored and/or comprehending how to hunt you down and blow you up.