God is an Impossibility

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by RCSaunders »

Janoah wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:06 pm I said already, regularity of nature is absolutely perfect, and really exists.
The regularity of nature is not material.
Saying the regularity of nature is perfect is absurd, of course. Reality is just as chaotic as it is regular, and there is no criteria for judging it as anything, perfect or imperfect.

But, a thing does not have to be material to exist. Events, relationships, attributes, and epistemological things all exist.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Janoah »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:26 am
Janoah wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:24 pm Regularity of nature is absolutely perfect, and really exists.
"Perfection," is a value term. To judge something as perfect there must be some criteria or scale against which that judgement can be made. No value pertains to nature (or existence) itself. It just is what it is.

Saying nature is perfect is as meaningless as saying nature is chaotic, evil, or cruel, which those who are not fond of nature frequently do.
what criteria or scale do you see for judging perfection, for example?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by RCSaunders »

Janoah wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:35 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:26 am
Janoah wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:24 pm Regularity of nature is absolutely perfect, and really exists.
"Perfection," is a value term. To judge something as perfect there must be some criteria or scale against which that judgement can be made. No value pertains to nature (or existence) itself. It just is what it is.

Saying nature is perfect is as meaningless as saying nature is chaotic, evil, or cruel, which those who are not fond of nature frequently do.
what criteria or scale do you see for judging perfection, for example?
The concept, "perfection," is not itself a value, it is category of values, just as, "importance," is not itself a value but a cateogry of values. Importance is a relationship between one thing and some objective, goal, or purpose. Anything that is deemed necessary or critical to achieving the objective, goal or purpose is considered to be important. It is only relative to some objective, goal, or purpose that anything is important.

In a similar way perfection is a relationship between an entity or event and some specific ideal or exact parameter. Whatever fully or completely meets that ideal or parameter is, "perfect."

There is no such thing as, "importance," itself, however, except as the concept for things which are important. There is no such thing as, "perfection," itself, except as the concept for things that perfectly meet some ideal or parameter.

Since there is no ideal or exact parameter that reality or nature or existence is supposed to meet, no "criteria or scale," the idea of perfection in those cases is irrelevant.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Janoah »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:53 am
In a similar way perfection is a relationship between an entity or event and some specific ideal or exact parameter. Whatever fully or completely meets that ideal or parameter is, "perfect."

the philosophical criterion of perfection, which I am talking about, is absolute independence from anything, and immutability.
As Aristotle brought it, only the immaterial can meet such a criterion. For every material essence is dependent, changeable.
The regularity of nature is immaterial, does not depend on anything, is unchangeable, therefore it is absolutely perfect according to this criterion.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by RCSaunders »

Janoah wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:59 pm the philosophical criterion of perfection, which I am talking about, is absolute independence from anything, and immutability.
Then you are talking about something you just made up. Your using the word, "perfection," as though it actually named something, but that which has no characteristic or properties itself is nothing. There is no such thing as, "perfection," as you are using it. If you are going to use a word that identifies an attribute (like beautiful, or funny, or perfect), you must specify the criteria by which a thing is judged to have the attribute, i.e. what makes something beautiful, funny, or perfect. To say something has absolute perfection is as meaningless as saying something has absolute beauty, or is absolutely funny. It's nonsense.
Janoah wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:59 pm As Aristotle brought it, only the immaterial can meet such a criterion. For every material essence is dependent, changeable.
Aristotle made a lot of mistakes. He thought women had fewer teeth then men and that heavier objects fell faster than light ones and that objects would not stay in motion unless continuously forced to. Try thinking for yourself.
Janoah wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:59 pm The regularity of nature is immaterial, does not depend on anything, is unchangeable, therefore it is absolutely perfect according to this criterion.
What regularity are you talking about? Nature is primarily chaotic and irregular. If your talking about the principles of physics, they are only a description of the nature of what exists and how it behaves. There is nothing teleological about it. If it were totally different, whatever it was, it would still be, "regular."

Existence, nature, reality are just what they are and have no value or purpose or meaning. Values, purposes, and meaning only pertain to beings capable of having values, purposes, and understanding meaning, human beings.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Janoah »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:37 pm
Aristotle made a lot of mistakes.
In this case, Aristotle is right.

The rest of what I have stated, you can understand if you wish, read it several times, and maybe you will succeed, good luck!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by RCSaunders »

Janoah wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:37 pm
Aristotle made a lot of mistakes.
In this case, Aristotle is right.

The rest of what I have stated, you can understand if you wish, read it several times, and maybe you will succeed, good luck!
Oh, I understand it, alright. I even enjoyed it. Nonsense, like Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky," "The Hunting of the Snark," and your philosophy are hilarious. Perhaps you learned you philosophy from Carroll's white queen, who, like you, could believe impossible things--as many as six before breakfast.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.
Not true. Statistical probability only pertains to what is not known. There is no probability that any past event could possibly have been anything other than what it was. Since every past event was once future event, there was never a time in the past when any later event could have been other than it was. Since every future event will eventually be a past event, no future event can possibly be other than what it is going to be. Probability only pertains to the fact that it is not known what those certain future events will be. There is only one possible future.
1. Strawman, to say that "x" is possible .0000000000....000009% of the time would result in the event of low probability eventually happening if the timeline expands. With the timeline expanding indefinitely comes the fruition of said event happening.

2. With the expansion of the timeline comes the possibility of timetravel where the past event eventually becomes rewritten under a new context thus changing the future.

3. We do not know there is one possible future as the future is determined by an ever changing now, the continual change of now necessitates there being multiple futures as the future is an interpretation of now. The future changes as the present changes as the future is grounded in the present.

4. Your argument comes from a stance of complete determinism but complete determinism is false given the nature of illusion of free will necessitates free will as existing given an illusion is the biproduct of choice between multiple options. Illusions deceive and one cannot be deceived unless they have a choice between multiple interpretations of reality. The very act of deception necessitates choice, choice necessitates a not total deterministic state.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.
Not true. Statistical probability only pertains to what is not known. There is no probability that any past event could possibly have been anything other than what it was. Since every past event was once future event, there was never a time in the past when any later event could have been other than it was. Since every future event will eventually be a past event, no future event can possibly be other than what it is going to be. Probability only pertains to the fact that it is not known what those certain future events will be. There is only one possible future.
4. Your argument comes from a stance of complete determinism ...
It has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. From: "The Nature Of Cause—Notes On Wrong Views:"
Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:19 am
Not true. Statistical probability only pertains to what is not known. There is no probability that any past event could possibly have been anything other than what it was. Since every past event was once future event, there was never a time in the past when any later event could have been other than it was. Since every future event will eventually be a past event, no future event can possibly be other than what it is going to be. Probability only pertains to the fact that it is not known what those certain future events will be. There is only one possible future.
4. Your argument comes from a stance of complete determinism ...
It has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. From: "The Nature Of Cause—Notes On Wrong Views:"
Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.
1. I said "complete determinism" not "logical determinism". In a complete determinism, or one could say hard determinism, A leads to B leads to C thus necessitating a fixed state. I never claimed the future is determined by logic. But this first point is weak so you can rightfully disagree with it and still be correct.

2. To argue that there is a fixed future which emerges from the present is to say the future is determined by the present. "What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature." This is determinism.

3. To argue that there is only one future is to rely on the singularity of past events, but considering past events are interpretations they are malliable to change and subject to multiple interpretations. The past is the localization of an event from a singular vantage point and as the vantage point changes so does the past. Past, present and future are all interpretations of events as the localization of phenomena from the vast expanse of phenomena.

4. "If it rained yesterday then it is not possible it could not have rained yesterday" is an open ended statement subject to context. It is quite possible it rained in "x" yesterday, but not in "y", thus necessitating it both rained and did not rain yesterday. A thing can both "be" and "not be" when subject to context.

5. Cause and effect is an act of measurement of the relations between one localized phenomenon and another and as such is descriptive. In this I think we can agree given the last statement "The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it." However because cause and effect is descriptive and all descriptions emerge from the mind (with the mind emerging from being at its core) then cause and effect is a phenomenon. This is considering consciousness is a phenomenon.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm ,,,

3. To argue that there is only one future is to rely on the singularity of past events, ...
There is no arguement. There cannot be two different futures anymore than there can two different pasts. The future can only be what it will actually be, not because it is determined by the past, but because there can only be one future.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm 4. "If it rained yesterday then it is not possible it could not have rained yesterday" is an open ended statement subject to context. It is quite possible it rained in "x" yesterday, but not in "y", ...
There is only one yesterday, not an "x yesterday," a "y yesterday," or a "z yesterday." There is only one true history. If you were right, we'd have to throw out all the history books and no record of anything in the past would be true. It's absurd.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm 5. Cause and effect is an act of measurement of the relations between one localized phenomenon and another and as such is descriptive. In this I think we can agree given the last statement "The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it." However because cause and effect is descriptive and all descriptions emerge from the mind (with the mind emerging from being at its core) then cause and effect is a phenomenon. This is considering consciousness is a phenomenon.
There is no such thing as cause and effect as you describe it. It's Humean nonsense. Go to the link--or not if you want to continue in your ignorance.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm ,,,

3. To argue that there is only one future is to rely on the singularity of past events, ...
There is no arguement. There cannot be two different futures anymore than there can two different pasts. The future can only be what it will actually be, not because it is determined by the past, but because there can only be one future.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm
4. "If it rained yesterday then it is not possible it could not have rained yesterday" is an open ended statement subject to context. It is quite possible it rained in "x" yesterday, but not in "y", ...
There is only one yesterday, not an "x yesterday," a "y yesterday," or a "z yesterday." There is only one true history. If you were right, we'd have to throw out all the history books and no record of anything in the past would be true. It's absurd.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm
5. Cause and effect is an act of measurement of the relations between one localized phenomenon and another and as such is descriptive. In this I think we can agree given the last statement "The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it." However because cause and effect is descriptive and all descriptions emerge from the mind (with the mind emerging from being at its core) then cause and effect is a phenomenon. This is considering consciousness is a phenomenon.
There is no such thing as cause and effect as you describe it. It's Humean nonsense. Go to the link--or not if you want to continue in your ignorance.
1. The future is a localization of phenomena amidst a whole variety of phenomenon. As a localization it is an interpretation of events that did not happen yet. As an interpretation, subject to angle of observation, there are multiple interpretations of the future therefore multiple futures. Dually considering the future did not happen yet one cannot say there is one future considering that to say only one "occured" moves the future to a past tense and it is no longer the future.

2. There are multiple yesterdays as there are multiple timezones, yesterday is a context within a given context of time with time being relative.

3. Cause and effect is the observation of relationships thus is a phenomenon of consciousness...to say it is not an observation of relationships is absurd.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:25 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm ,,,

3. To argue that there is only one future is to rely on the singularity of past events, ...
There is no arguement. There cannot be two different futures anymore than there can two different pasts. The future can only be what it will actually be, not because it is determined by the past, but because there can only be one future.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm
4. "If it rained yesterday then it is not possible it could not have rained yesterday" is an open ended statement subject to context. It is quite possible it rained in "x" yesterday, but not in "y", ...
There is only one yesterday, not an "x yesterday," a "y yesterday," or a "z yesterday." There is only one true history. If you were right, we'd have to throw out all the history books and no record of anything in the past would be true. It's absurd.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm
5. Cause and effect is an act of measurement of the relations between one localized phenomenon and another and as such is descriptive. In this I think we can agree given the last statement "The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it." However because cause and effect is descriptive and all descriptions emerge from the mind (with the mind emerging from being at its core) then cause and effect is a phenomenon. This is considering consciousness is a phenomenon.
There is no such thing as cause and effect as you describe it. It's Humean nonsense. Go to the link--or not if you want to continue in your ignorance.
1. The future is a localization of phenomena amidst a whole variety of phenomenon. As a localization it is an interpretation of events that did not happen yet. As an interpretation, subject to angle of observation, there are multiple interpretations of the future therefore multiple futures. Dually considering the future did not happen yet one cannot say there is one future considering that to say only one "occured" moves the future to a past tense and it is no longer the future.

2. There are multiple yesterdays as there are multiple timezones, yesterday is a context within a given context of time with time being relative.

3. Cause and effect is the observation of relationships thus is a phenomenon of consciousness...to say it is not an observation of relationships is absurd.
I see you preferred to remain ignorant. It's your choice, of course.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:56 am
seeds wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:40 pm [....]...
...The bottom line is that you can arbitrarily "propose" that...


...however, that doesn't necessarily mean that the proposal is factual.
You are cherry picking.
You did not take into account my following responses,
viewtopic.php?p=368483#p368483
and any relevant that follows in that thread.
In the post you linked to, the following statements were made:
seeds wrote: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm I’m sorry, but all you are doing is presenting strawman arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God could be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am I do not think so.
You have to explain why 'strawman.'
Well, let me explain it for you right now...

In that particular thread you asserted the following as being supportive proof as to why the existence of God is impossible...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am ...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.
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,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I did not misinterpret your proposition, rather I presented a valid and sound argument. The onus is on you to counter it. Your accusation itself that my syllogism is a strawman, is your strawman.

Your 'because humans are idiots' is also a strawman since I never propose such a point in my argument.
My point is all humans has an inherent drive for perfection as driven by an inherent existential crisis.
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.


And that, my dear Veritas, is a strawman argument.

I even went so far as to formalize your strawman argument in my own little syllogism...
seeds wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:18 pm
  • P1. Veritas Aequitas (a hardcore atheist) believes that under no circumstances (neither empirical nor transcendent) could there exist a “real” God.

    P2. As proof of the veracity of P1, Veritas Aequitas uses the example of theists being prone to ridiculing gods that appear to be lesser than the one they believe in.

    C. Ergo, there can be no “real” God.
What you are relying on as being proof of your claim that "God is an Impossibility," is the epitome of a strawman argument that you erected and then destroyed while completely ignoring the fact that it has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether or not God actually exists.

Indeed, that is what "strawman arguments" are all about, in that they are constructed and then destroyed by their creators under the false assumption that they (the strawmen) are somehow relevant to the original premise when, in truth, they aren't.
Your above misinterpretation of my argument is the real strawman_ing.
Furthermore, in that same post you linked to, you then went on to say this...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am As far as I have known, I have countered all arguments against my premises and I have not conceded to any.
Tell me where if I have missed your counter to my P2. I will be very eager to counter your views.
Unfortunately, relying on strawmen to fend off your opponent's rebuttals can hardly be deemed a proper means for countering all arguments against your thread premise.

Moreover, never at any time did you even try to provide an adequate counter to this...
seeds wrote: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm ...if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.
In fact, in a later post, in response to my attacks on your use of strawman proposals, you not only accused my little syllogism of being an "...ad hominin and below the belt...," but you actually (in the most non self-reflecting manner imaginable) had the brazen temerity to offer-up this little gem...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:47 am Making statements do not mean you are right.
Dear lord, can there be a more obvious demonstration of someone shooting themself in the foot with a gun (make that a cannon) loaded with pure irony?
_______
Note this OP is merely the "final nail" to the coffin 'that God does not exist'.

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.

    3. The argument in
    God is an Impossibility to be empirically real
    viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
    as the 'final nail'.
Point 2 above is a counter to your "is it impossible to prove the non-existence of God." Claiming a God exists is like claiming a circle is a square at the same time and same sense.
Thus it is a non-starter to resort to 'impossibility to prove the non-existence of a God, which is actually a strawman to counter my claim.
Resorting to asking 'proving a negative' is also a desperate escapism from rationality to cover for your desperate existential crisis.

The point is one can only THINK [not imagine] of a God for regulative purposes but impossible to reify such a thought of God constitutively.

If you are only allowed to THINK of a God, why not think of a perfect God rather than an imperfect God which is vulnerable to be condemned as a idiot God relatively.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by attofishpi »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:47 am Note this OP is merely the "final nail" to the coffin 'that God does not exist'.

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.

    3. The argument in
    God is an Impossibility to be empirically real
    viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
    as the 'final nail'.
Point 2 above is a counter to your "is it impossible to prove the non-existence of God." Claiming a God exists is like claiming a circle is a square at the same time and same sense.
Thus it is a non-starter to resort to 'impossibility to prove the non-existence of a God, which is actually a strawman to counter my claim.
Resorting to asking 'proving a negative' is also a desperate escapism from rationality to cover for your desperate existential crisis.

The point is one can only THINK [not imagine] of a God for regulative purposes but impossible to reify such a thought of God constitutively.

If you are only allowed to THINK of a God, why not think of a perfect God rather than an imperfect God which is vulnerable to be condemned as a idiot God relatively.
Still waffling on then!

To prove God does not exist would require knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and perhaps the multiverse if such verses exist!!

PS. The day you manage that, let us all know.
Post Reply