God is an Impossibility

[seeds]

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

All your above are noises without substantial rational arguments.

Yes, all of my above statements would indeed appear to be "noises" to someone who is completely unaware (unconscious) of the fact that he is "sleepwalking" through this "dream-like" illusion that we call a universe.

Again, it is all "noises" to you in a way that is somewhat similar to the way that the words being conveyed to this little puppy dog...



...are nothing more than "noises" to her (and, of course, that explanation will simply be more noises to you).

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...

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.

The only "cheating" I did in regards to what you are calling my "dirty invention," is that I lifted it from a conversation we had more than 2 years ago that consisted of you explaining how when you first started out on philosophy forums you were constantly receiving "...left, right, and center bashings..." from those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument.

Here is the source from which that so-called "dirty invention" was derived...

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.

I disagree with tying me with the label [a]theism.
I am not-a-theist.

Veritas, you can rest assured that statements such as that will guarantee you a steady supply of those left, right, and center bashings you are familiar with.

I mean, how silly it was of me to think that someone who incessantly proclaims that “God is an impossibility to be real” would be an atheist.

Sheesh!!!

I have to admit the earlier bashings I faced [long ago] was due to my naivety and ignorance. I have learned and overcame those limitations -A.

One very obvious precedents is the pioneers and front runners in knowledge are always bashed left, right and center, not Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes. I believe what I am encountering at present is the latter rather than the former -A.

So, unless I misunderstood your sometimes problematic use of the English language, the clear implication is that you believe that people give you a hard time (bashings) over your views, similar to the way they gave Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes, a hard time.

So, no, Veritas, my slightly paraphrased interpretation of what you said back then...

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

...was not a "dirty invention," for it was perfectly suited for the list I'm compiling of your self-aggrandizing statements.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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

I'm always impressed by someone who can speak more than one language (for English does not appear to be your native tongue), so don't take this as an insult,...

...however, if I am properly interpreting your somewhat "unique" use of English grammar, punctuation, and syntax, you seem to be insinuating that I am ignorant of the phrase - "standing on the shoulders of giants."

In which case, I need to point out that it was just a few posts ago, when after you gave your testimonial as to how your whole series of claims that 'It is impossible for a God to be real' rests upon the blatherings of Kant, I responded with this...

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."

And the point is that you are either not actually reading my posts in their entirety, or you have comprehension issues, or, worse yet, you are simply being dishonest in your replies.

However a personal omni-whatever-good God is still subject to various critiques,...

Ah yes, and here we are, right back to your strawman argument.

I don't know how many times, or how many different ways I can present this to you before it finally (if ever) sinks in, but if you were to remove all humans from the universe (as if they had never come into existence),...

...in other words, if there were literally no one left in the universe to make-up any stories about God and subsequently compare and critique those stories in terms of one being inferior to another...

...it would not exhibit or represent one iota of relevance to the question of whether or not God exists.

...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,...

Not only is it obvious that you do not know the implicit difference between "pantheism" and that of "panentheism," but you are completely wrong if you think that I don't believe in a "personal" God.

Get your facts straight, little V.

...but it is still grounded on the problem of a cognitive dissonance...

Or, is it possible that it could be grounded in the fact that someone who has had different experiences in life than you, might know something about reality that you don't?

Yeah, yeah, I know, more indecipherable "noise."

And lastly, in regards to your idolization of Kant, to slightly paraphrase something Christopher Hitchens said about Jerry Falwell and apply it to Kant...

"...If the mortician had given him an enema you could have buried him in a matchbox..."

_______

[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.

Do God and accident HAVE TO BE 'alternatives'?

Can they NOT BOTH co-exist, together?

They have to be one or the other. Because either the cosmos is ordered or it's random.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

All your above are noises without substantial rational arguments.

Yes, all of my above statements would indeed appear to be "noises" to someone who is completely unaware (unconscious) of the fact that he is "sleepwalking" through this "dream-like" illusion that we call a universe.

Again, it is all "noises" to you in a way that is somewhat similar to the way that the words being conveyed to this little puppy dog...



...are nothing more than "noises" to her (and, of course, that explanation will simply be more noises to you).

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...

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.

The only "cheating" I did in regards to what you are calling my "dirty invention," is that I lifted it from a conversation we had more than 2 years ago that consisted of you explaining how when you first started out on philosophy forums you were constantly receiving "...left, right, and center bashings..." from those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument.

Here is the source from which that so-called "dirty invention" was derived...

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.

Veritas, you can rest assured that statements such as that will guarantee you a steady supply of those left, right, and center bashings you are familiar with.

I mean, how silly it was of me to think that someone who incessantly proclaims that “God is an impossibility to be real” would be an atheist.

Sheesh!!!

I have to admit the earlier bashings I faced [long ago] was due to my naivety and ignorance. I have learned and overcame those limitations -A.

One very obvious precedents is the pioneers and front runners in knowledge are always bashed left, right and center, not Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes. I believe what I am encountering at present is the latter rather than the former -A.

So, unless I misunderstood your sometimes problematic use of the English language, the clear implication is that you believe that people give you a hard time (bashings) over your views, similar to the way they gave Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes, a hard time.

So, no, Veritas, my slightly paraphrased interpretation of what you said back then...

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

...was not a "dirty invention," for it was perfectly suited for the list I'm compiling of your self-aggrandizing statements.

(Continued in next post)
_______

If that is the context, I agree.
I mentioned the above because they were well known examples in terms of objections and ridicules but I am not claiming I am as 'recognized great philosophers' as they are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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

I'm always impressed by someone who can speak more than one language (for English does not appear to be your native tongue), so don't take this as an insult,...

...however, if I am properly interpreting your somewhat "unique" use of English grammar, punctuation, and syntax, you seem to be insinuating that I am ignorant of the phrase - "standing on the shoulders of giants."

In which case, I need to point out that it was just a few posts ago, when after you gave your testimonial as to how your whole series of claims that 'It is impossible for a God to be real' rests upon the blatherings of Kant, I responded with this...

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."

And the point is that you are either not actually reading my posts in their entirety, or you have comprehension issues, or, worse yet, you are simply being dishonest in your replies.

I agree I did not give serious attention to that point because it did not strike me as something serious amidst your very messy and cluttered post. So I withdraw my statement you were ignorant of that phrase. [it was meant to be sarcastic with a ? [question mark], since that phrase is wo well known]
My point why I relied on past philosophers nevertheless still stands.

However a personal omni-whatever-good God is still subject to various critiques,...

Ah yes, and here we are, right back to your strawman argument.

I don't know how many times, or how many different ways I can present this to you before it finally (if ever) sinks in, but if you were to remove all humans from the universe (as if they had never come into existence),...

...in other words, if there were literally no one left in the universe to make-up any stories about God and subsequently compare and critique those stories in terms of one being inferior to another...

...it would not exhibit or represent one iota of relevance to the question of whether or not God exists.

That is irrelevant and off topic because what is on topic is there are humans on earth at present deliberating whether or not God exists.
Do you expect us to stand on Mars [or Pluto] and look at Earth without humans?

...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,...

Not only is it obvious that you do not know the implicit difference between "pantheism" and that of "panentheism," but you are completely wrong if you think that I don't believe in a "personal" God.
Get your facts straight, little V.

I am familiar with their general concepts.
The idea of a personal god is not an imperative quality of panentheism.
If you want to believe it as a personal-God that is your discretion, can you confirm you take your panentheistic god as a personal-God?

...but it is still grounded on the problem of a cognitive dissonance...

Or, is it possible that it could be grounded in the fact that someone who has had different experiences in life than you, might know something about reality that you don't?

Yeah, yeah, I know, more indecipherable "noise."

I have provided a basis, reason and argument for that.
Point is I have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which cover the likes of yours and understand where they come from with the continuum of spiritual claims.

On the other hand, you are merely being stuck with your own personal experiences and breeding confirmation bias.

And lastly, in regards to your idolization of Kant, to slightly paraphrase something Christopher Hitchens said about Jerry Falwell and apply it to Kant...

"...If the mortician had given him an enema you could have buried him in a matchbox..."

_______

As I had mentioned even all the great and greatest philosophers were subjected to objections and oppositions to their views plus ridicules.

Those who condemned them without substantial counters [mere ridicules] are unfortunately psychologically unstable in relation to that matter.

Any one who has the intellectual integrity will have to ensure they have read the books of those they condemned, with thorough understanding[not necessary agree with] before they critique their work.
Kant claimed his work is based on completeness and any one who critique his book by cherry picking only certain sections will miss out on what he intended.

Kant's main theme is grounded on Empirical Realism & Transcendental Realism on one side and the other "Tribe" is that of Transcendental Realism and Empirical Idealism.
The point is the 'twain will never meet' and every chapter of Kant's CPR is met with objections from the other Tribe.
The Transcendental Realists views being the 'bottom up' approach is not realistic at all in contrast to Kant's Copernican Turn top-down approach.

[attofishpi]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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

I'm always impressed by someone who can speak more than one language (for English does not appear to be your native tongue), so don't take this as an insult,...

...however, if I am properly interpreting your somewhat "unique" use of English grammar, punctuation, and syntax, you seem to be insinuating that I am ignorant of the phrase - "standing on the shoulders of giants."

In which case, I need to point out that it was just a few posts ago, when after you gave your testimonial as to how your whole series of claims that 'It is impossible for a God to be real' rests upon the blatherings of Kant, I responded with this...

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."

And the point is that you are either not actually reading my posts in their entirety, or you have comprehension issues, or, worse yet, you are simply being dishonest in your replies.

I agree I did not give serious attention to that point because it did not strike me as something serious amidst your very messy and cluttered post. So I withdraw my statement you were ignorant of that phrase. [it was meant to be sarcastic with a ? [question mark], since that phrase is wo well known]
My point why I relied on past philosophers nevertheless still stands.

However a personal omni-whatever-good God is still subject to various critiques,...

Ah yes, and here we are, right back to your strawman argument.

I don't know how many times, or how many different ways I can present this to you before it finally (if ever) sinks in, but if you were to remove all humans from the universe (as if they had never come into existence),...

...in other words, if there were literally no one left in the universe to make-up any stories about God and subsequently compare and critique those stories in terms of one being inferior to another...

...it would not exhibit or represent one iota of relevance to the question of whether or not God exists.

That is irrelevant and off topic because what is on topic is there are humans on earth at present deliberating whether or not God exists.
Do you expect us to stand on Mars [or Pluto] and look at Earth without humans?

...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,...

Not only is it obvious that you do not know the implicit difference between "pantheism" and that of "panentheism," but you are completely wrong if you think that I don't believe in a "personal" God.
Get your facts straight, little V.

I am familiar with their general concepts.
The idea of a personal god is not an imperative quality of panentheism.
If you want to believe it as a personal-God that is your discretion, can you confirm you take your panentheistic god as a personal-God?

...but it is still grounded on the problem of a cognitive dissonance...

Or, is it possible that it could be grounded in the fact that someone who has had different experiences in life than you, might know something about reality that you don't?

Yeah, yeah, I know, more indecipherable "noise."

I have provided a basis, reason and argument for that.
Point is I have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which cover the likes of yours and understand where they come from with the continuum of spiritual claims.

On the other hand, you are merely being stuck with your own personal experiences and breeding confirmation bias.

And lastly, in regards to your idolization of Kant, to slightly paraphrase something Christopher Hitchens said about Jerry Falwell and apply it to Kant...

"...If the mortician had given him an enema you could have buried him in a matchbox..."

_______

As I had mentioned even all the great and greatest philosophers were subjected to objections and oppositions to their views plus ridicules.

Those who condemned them without substantial counters [mere ridicules] are unfortunately psychologically unstable in relation to that matter.

Any one who has the intellectual integrity will have to ensure they have read the books of those they condemned, with thorough understanding[not necessary agree with] before they critique their work.
Kant claimed his work is based on completeness and any one who critique his book by cherry picking only certain sections will miss out on what he intended.

Kant's main theme is grounded on Empirical Realism & Transcendental Realism on one side and the other "Tribe" is that of Transcendental Realism and Empirical Idealism.
The point is the 'twain will never meet' and every chapter of Kant's CPR is met with objections from the other Tribe.
The Transcendental Realists views being the 'bottom up' approach is not realistic at all in contrast to Kant's Copernican Turn top-down approach.

When one reads philosophy of others, they are contaminating whatever their own perception and reasoning is, which is made worse when one concentrates on a certain 'trait' of philosophers - such as in your case, those of atheist mindsets.

This my dear Veritas, is where you began to fail. It's the same when one concentrates on watching the news from (especially a commercial station) where there are vested interests that provide a biased viewpoint.

Comprehend?

[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?

They have to be one or the other. Because either the cosmos is ordered or it's random.

There is at least one other alternative, or another way to LOOK AT this, where BOTH can exist and be quite compatible.

[seeds]

However a personal omni-whatever-good God is still subject to various critiques,...

Ah yes, and here we are, right back to your strawman argument.

I don't know how many times, or how many different ways I can present this to you before it finally (if ever) sinks in, but if you were to remove all humans from the universe (as if they had never come into existence),...

...in other words, if there were literally no one left in the universe to make-up any stories about God and subsequently compare and critique those stories in terms of one being inferior to another...

...it would not exhibit or represent one iota of relevance to the question of whether or not God exists.

That is irrelevant and off topic because what is on topic is there are humans on earth at present deliberating whether or not God exists.

Yes, and therein lies the problem, because your so-called "on topic" argument and justification for your claim that God is an impossibility to be real, is a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT that some of us are simply not going to allow you to get away with.

Do you expect us to stand on Mars [or Pluto] and look at Earth without humans?

No. I expect you (as a thought experiment) to stand outside the bounds of the universe itself...



...and imagine it to be totally devoid of any humans whatsoever, and then tell me how that would have any bearing or relevance to the real and actual question (as opposed to your strawman argument) of whether or not there is a higher Being who is responsible for the creation of that bubble of reality?

...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,...

Not only is it obvious that you do not know the implicit difference between "pantheism" and that of "panentheism," but you are completely wrong if you think that I don't believe in a "personal" God.

Get your facts straight, little V.

I am familiar with their general concepts.
The idea of a personal god is not an imperative quality of panentheism.
If you want to believe it as a personal-God that is your discretion, can you confirm you take your panentheistic god as a personal-God?

Clearly, none of us (not me, not you, not Kant, etc.) can "confirm" anything about such metaphysical issues.

However, other than the fact that I appear to be an obsessive theistic nutjob who likes to create strange visuals, what in the world do you think my metaphorical illustrations (especially those "icons"/"eye-cons") are implying if not the "personhood" (the self-aware "I Am-ness") of God?...






Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, or that you have to agree with my whacky theory, however, come on now, Veritas, you claim to have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which, according to you, covers the likes of my particular take on reality.

In which case, just for the sake of you proving to me that you at least understand the basics of my theory, please tell me, what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

By the way, I even created an illustration (maybe 25 years ago) that seems to perfectly exemplify your quarreling boneheaded humans. Here it is...



Captions starting at 9 oclock and moving clockwise:

Christian seed: "God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Muslim seed: "You are infidels! Allah is God and Mohammad is his prophet!"

Materialist seed: "You're all a bunch-a-nuts! There is no god. This whole thing is just a big accident!"

Hindu seed: "You are misinformed. There are many gods. There is Brahma and Shiva and Vishnu. There is Prajapati, Indra, Agni, Krishna, Ganesh,...."

Buddhist seed: "I agree with the "accident guy." There is no god. But you do have to keep coming back, again and again, in order to become a better...um?...er?..."

GOD: "My kids are a real hoot!"

Racist seed: "The stripes on your shell are vertical and not horizontal like mine. You are unworthy!"

The point is, my dear little V, the ignorant and petty opinions of the (yet to be fully-born) seeds have no bearing on what actually is, for they are completely oblivious of the higher truth of their situation.

Indeed, this is the perfect representation of how and why your argument is a strawman. Just take your place somewhere amidst your fellow seeds in the illustration and keep demonstrating that you too are just as oblivious as they are.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is irrelevant and off topic because what is on topic is there are humans on earth at present deliberating whether or not God exists.

Yes, and therein lies the problem, because your so-called "on topic" argument and justification for your claim that God is an impossibility to be real, is a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT that some of us are simply not going to allow you to get away with.

Mine is not a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT because I initiated the argument [OP] and did not misinterpret your argument. You are the one who is strawman_ning here with all sorts of ad hominens.
Whatever you want to do I will really appreciate valid and sound counters to my argument [OP] - the more the better. So far whatever counter you have presented I have provided rational recounters.

Do you expect us to stand on Mars [or Pluto] and look at Earth without humans?

No. I expect you (as a thought experiment) to stand outside the bounds of the universe itself...

...and imagine it to be totally devoid of any humans whatsoever, and then tell me how that would have any bearing or relevance to the real and actual question (as opposed to your strawman argument) of whether or not there is a higher Being who is responsible for the creation of that bubble of reality?

I can imagine what you proposed [a matrix programmer] but at the most whatever the resultant is only imagination.
Ultimately it is an impossibility that is beyond imagination because there is no way, humans as part of parcel of reality can stand apart from reality [which it is imperative a part of] to conclude on anything that is independent of the human self.

Clearly, none of us (not me, not you, not Kant, etc.) can "confirm" anything about such metaphysical issues.

However, other than the fact that I appear to be an obsessive theistic nutjob who likes to create strange visuals, what in the world do you think my metaphorical illustrations (especially those "icons"/"eye-cons") are implying if not the "personhood" (the self-aware "I Am-ness") of God?...

In general 'personal God' refer to theistic god of e.g. the Abrahamic God who could provide personal salvation to heaven to avoid hell.
In that sense your god is an impersonal God? yes/no?

Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, or that you have to agree with my whacky theory, however, come on now, Veritas, you claim to have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which, according to you, covers the likes of my particular take on reality.

In which case, just for the sake of you proving to me that you at least understand the basics of my theory, please tell me, what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

In terms of spirituality, yours belong to those who have some sort of real experiences re 'spirituality' of all sorts.
In your case you have the ability to draw out what you experienced which narrow your experiences to the sort the images mostly has an eye or eyes.
The 'eye' symbolizes your mind's eye looking at things and experiencing the images.
Basically the whole thing is ultimately anthropomorphic.

I have had and still has 'spiritual experiences' where beautiful psychedelic colors and shapes unfold towards 'me' [mind's eye] and all sorts of other so-called spiritual experiences, but I just ignored them as side effects from the process.

I bet Jill Bolte a neuroscientist [sp. brain anatomy] have had a more refined and 'higher' spiritual experience than what you [& others] have had experienced, but hers was triggered by a very severe brain damage from a stroke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=5s
I suggest you listen to the video if you have not or read her book.

Btw, have you contrasted your ideology with that of monadology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

Here are some examples [with an eye or 'eyes' GENRE] from the many many I have seen and read of; [.. I presumed these are not submitted by you?]

By the way, I even created an illustration (maybe 25 years ago) that seems to perfectly exemplify your quarreling boneheaded humans. Here it is...

The point is, my dear little V, the ignorant and petty opinions of the (yet to be fully-born) seeds have no bearing on what actually is, for they are completely oblivious of the higher truth of their situation.

Indeed, this is the perfect representation of how and why your argument is a strawman. Just take your place somewhere amidst your fellow seeds in the illustration and keep demonstrating that you too are just as oblivious as they are.

The 'currency' of this forum to be traded is valid and sound arguments.
So far I have presented my genuine ones, yours are duds and fake 'currencies'.

[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?

They have to be one or the other. Because either the cosmos is ordered or it's random.

When it is discovered what thee Universe is fundamentally made up of, and how the Universe fundamentally works, then what becomes very clear is how the so-called 'cosmos' could be and is 'ordered randomly', or 'randomly ordered'.

If ANY one is Truly INTERESTED in how this could even be possible, then just let me know.

[Age]

All your above are noises without substantial rational arguments.

Yes, all of my above statements would indeed appear to be "noises" to someone who is completely unaware (unconscious) of the fact that he is "sleepwalking" through this "dream-like" illusion that we call a universe.

Again, it is all "noises" to you in a way that is somewhat similar to the way that the words being conveyed to this little puppy dog...



...are nothing more than "noises" to her (and, of course, that explanation will simply be more noises to you).

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...

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.

The only "cheating" I did in regards to what you are calling my "dirty invention," is that I lifted it from a conversation we had more than 2 years ago that consisted of you explaining how when you first started out on philosophy forums you were constantly receiving "...left, right, and center bashings..." from those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument.

Here is the source from which that so-called "dirty invention" was derived...

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.

I have to admit the earlier bashings I faced [long ago] was due to my naivety and ignorance. I have learned and overcame those limitations -A.

One very obvious precedents is the pioneers and front runners in knowledge are always bashed left, right and center, not Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes. I believe what I am encountering at present is the latter rather than the former -A.

So, unless I misunderstood your sometimes problematic use of the English language, the clear implication is that you believe that people give you a hard time (bashings) over your views, similar to the way they gave Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes, a hard time.

So, no, Veritas, my slightly paraphrased interpretation of what you said back then...

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

...was not a "dirty invention," for it was perfectly suited for the list I'm compiling of your self-aggrandizing statements.

(Continued in next post)
_______

If that is the context, I agree.
I mentioned the above because they were well known examples in terms of objections and ridicules but I am not claiming I am as 'recognized great philosophers' as they are.

Are you here, however, 'trying to' claim that you are a 'recognized great philosopher', at all?

[Age]

However a personal omni-whatever-good God is still subject to various critiques,...

Ah yes, and here we are, right back to your strawman argument.

I don't know how many times, or how many different ways I can present this to you before it finally (if ever) sinks in, but if you were to remove all humans from the universe (as if they had never come into existence),...

...in other words, if there were literally no one left in the universe to make-up any stories about God and subsequently compare and critique those stories in terms of one being inferior to another...

...it would not exhibit or represent one iota of relevance to the question of whether or not God exists.

That is irrelevant and off topic because what is on topic is there are humans on earth at present deliberating whether or not God exists.

Yes, and therein lies the problem, because your so-called "on topic" argument and justification for your claim that God is an impossibility to be real, is a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT that some of us are simply not going to allow you to get away with.

Do you expect us to stand on Mars [or Pluto] and look at Earth without humans?

No. I expect you (as a thought experiment) to stand outside the bounds of the universe itself...

But it is JUST, STANDING STILL, HERE-NOW, (with thee Universe, Itself) and just LOOK (from the Mind's Eye, ONLY) where the FULL True, Right, and Correct results for ALL 'thought experiments' come to LIGHT and so can be CLEARLY SEEN.

There are NO bounds of thee Universe, Itself.

To SEE thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of 'things' one needs to LOOK FROM EVERY thing, and NOT LOOK (from the outside) AT 'things'.

...and imagine it to be totally devoid of any humans whatsoever, and then tell me how that would have any bearing or relevance to the real and actual question (as opposed to your strawman argument) of whether or not there is a higher Being who is responsible for the creation of that bubble of reality?

Why do you use the term and phrase, "bubble of reality"?

That would imply or infer that there was some 'thing' 'else' or some 'thing' outside or beyond that "bubble", which had absolutely NOTHING to do with that so-called "bubble" nor what is within it.

Which could NOT even be a possibility, let alone an ACTUALITY, correct?

...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,...

Not only is it obvious that you do not know the implicit difference between "pantheism" and that of "panentheism," but you are completely wrong if you think that I don't believe in a "personal" God.

Get your facts straight, little V.

I am familiar with their general concepts.
The idea of a personal god is not an imperative quality of panentheism.
If you want to believe it as a personal-God that is your discretion, can you confirm you take your panentheistic god as a personal-God?

Clearly, none of us (not me, not you, not Kant, etc.) can "confirm" anything about such metaphysical issues.

Thee only True 'things', in the Universe, which can be confirmed are what 'you', human beings, agree, or disagree, on and with.

And, as I have said previously, the ONLY True way, which I KNOW OF, to ascend to and ascertain thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' and 'that' to be without doubt IRREFUTABLY True is TO KNOW absolutely EVERY one could be in total AGREEMENT, and ACCEPTANCE.

However, other than the fact that I appear to be an obsessive theistic nutjob who likes to create strange visuals, what in the world do you think my metaphorical illustrations (especially those "icons"/"eye-cons") are implying if not the "personhood" (the self-aware "I Am-ness") of God?...






Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, or that you have to agree with my whacky theory, however, come on now, Veritas, you claim to have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which, according to you, covers the likes of my particular take on reality.

In which case, just for the sake of you proving to me that you at least understand the basics of my theory, please tell me, what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

By the way, I even created an illustration (maybe 25 years ago) that seems to perfectly exemplify your quarreling boneheaded humans. Here it is...



Captions starting at 9 oclock and moving clockwise:

Christian seed: "God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Muslim seed: "You are infidels! Allah is God and Mohammad is his prophet!"

Materialist seed: "You're all a bunch-a-nuts! There is no god. This whole thing is just a big accident!"

Hindu seed: "You are misinformed. There are many gods. There is Brahma and Shiva and Vishnu. There is Prajapati, Indra, Agni, Krishna, Ganesh,...."

Buddhist seed: "I agree with the "accident guy." There is no god. But you do have to keep coming back, again and again, in order to become a better...um?...er?..."

GOD: "My kids are a real hoot!"

Racist seed: "The stripes on your shell are vertical and not horizontal like mine. You are unworthy!"

The point is, my dear little V, the ignorant and petty opinions of the (yet to be fully-born) seeds have no bearing on what actually is, for they are completely oblivious of the higher truth of their situation.

Indeed, this is the perfect representation of how and why your argument is a strawman. Just take your place somewhere amidst your fellow seeds in the illustration and keep demonstrating that you too are just as oblivious as they are.
_______

Does this include you seeds as well?

[Age]

That is irrelevant and off topic because what is on topic is there are humans on earth at present deliberating whether or not God exists.

Yes, and therein lies the problem, because your so-called "on topic" argument and justification for your claim that God is an impossibility to be real, is a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT that some of us are simply not going to allow you to get away with.

Mine is not a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT because I initiated the argument [OP] and did not misinterpret your argument. You are the one who is strawman_ning here with all sorts of ad hominens.
Whatever you want to do I will really appreciate valid and sound counters to my argument [OP] - the more the better.

But ONLY One valid AND sound counter to your argument would be sufficient. As a 'valid AND sound argument' could NOT be refuted, forever more.

So far whatever counter you have presented I have provided rational recounters.

But EVERY adult human being 'rationalizes' 'things', to "themselves". But this NEVER means what is 'rationalized', to them, is 'rationalized' in relation to Reality and thee Truth, "Themselves".

Would I be wrong in saying that ABSOLUTELY EVER 'recounter' you have provided "veritas aequitas" is a 'rational' one?

Does ANY one here, purposely, provide 'irrational', to "them" 'self', counters?

And, what can be VERY EASILY OBSERVED and CLEARLY SEEN among 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, is that what is 'ration' to one is CERTAINLY NOT 'rational' AT ALL, to "others".

Were "seeds" 'counters' rational to 'you', "veritas aequitas"?

And, were "veritas aequitas's" 'recounters', ACTUALLY, rational to ANY one reading this?

Do you expect us to stand on Mars [or Pluto] and look at Earth without humans?

No. I expect you (as a thought experiment) to stand outside the bounds of the universe itself...

...and imagine it to be totally devoid of any humans whatsoever, and then tell me how that would have any bearing or relevance to the real and actual question (as opposed to your strawman argument) of whether or not there is a higher Being who is responsible for the creation of that bubble of reality?

What is the supposed and alleged real and actual question here?

This thread is/was about God is an Impossibility. So, surely whether or not there is a higher Being who is responsible for the creation of that 'bubble of reality'/the Universe, who is also known as God, would have BEARING and be of RELEVANCE, would it not?

I can imagine what you proposed [a matrix programmer] but at the most whatever the resultant is only imagination.
Ultimately it is an impossibility that is beyond imagination because there is no way, humans as part of parcel of reality can stand apart from reality [which it is imperative a part of] to conclude on anything that is independent of the human self.

Clearly, none of us (not me, not you, not Kant, etc.) can "confirm" anything about such metaphysical issues.

However, other than the fact that I appear to be an obsessive theistic nutjob who likes to create strange visuals, what in the world do you think my metaphorical illustrations (especially those "icons"/"eye-cons") are implying if not the "personhood" (the self-aware "I Am-ness") of God?...

In general 'personal God' refer to theistic god of e.g. the Abrahamic God who could provide personal salvation to heaven to avoid hell.
In that sense your god is an impersonal God? yes/no?

Your INTERPRETATION of 'heaven' and 'hell' is CLEAR WRONG, and ABSURD. And, I KNOW this without you even having to EXPRESS what YOUR INTERPRETATION, clearly, IS.

Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, or that you have to agree with my whacky theory, however, come on now, Veritas, you claim to have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which, according to you, covers the likes of my particular take on reality.

In which case, just for the sake of you proving to me that you at least understand the basics of my theory, please tell me, what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

In terms of spirituality, yours belong to those who have some sort of real experiences re 'spirituality' of all sorts.
In your case you have the ability to draw out what you experienced which narrow your experiences to the sort the images mostly has an eye or eyes.
The 'eye' symbolizes your mind's eye looking at things and experiencing the images.
Basically the whole thing is ultimately anthropomorphic.

How could referring to the Mind's Eye be 'anthropomorphic' when 'you', human beings, do NOT even have a 'mind', and the word 'eye' just refers to viewing, observing, perceiving, looking, and SEEING, or UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING, 'things'. Which is EXACTLY what the Mind, Itself, does do, among other things.

I have had and still has 'spiritual experiences' where beautiful psychedelic colors and shapes unfold towards 'me' [mind's eye] and all sorts of other so-called spiritual experiences, but I just ignored them as side effects from the process.

Do you consider 'ignoring things' as wise move?

In fact could 'ignoring things' just be a side-effect of a VERY CLOSED person?

I bet Jill Bolte a neuroscientist [sp. brain anatomy] have had a more refined and 'higher' spiritual experience than what you [& others] have had experienced, but hers was triggered by a very severe brain damage from a stroke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=5s
I suggest you listen to the video if you have not or read her book.

I suggest you LET GO of the BELIEFS, which you are DESPERATELY HOLDING ONTO here and are CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN, STEADFASTLY.

Btw, have you contrasted your ideology with that of monadology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

Here are some examples [with an eye or 'eyes' GENRE] from the many many I have seen and read of; [.. I presumed these are not submitted by you?]

By the way, I even created an illustration (maybe 25 years ago) that seems to perfectly exemplify your quarreling boneheaded humans. Here it is...

The point is, my dear little V, the ignorant and petty opinions of the (yet to be fully-born) seeds have no bearing on what actually is, for they are completely oblivious of the higher truth of their situation.

Indeed, this is the perfect representation of how and why your argument is a strawman. Just take your place somewhere amidst your fellow seeds in the illustration and keep demonstrating that you too are just as oblivious as they are.

The 'currency' of this forum to be traded is valid and sound arguments.
So far I have presented my genuine ones, yours are duds and fake 'currencies'.

When you say, "my genuine ones", here "veritas aequitas", I hope you are referring to your 'arguments' and NOT to ANY so-called "valid and sound arguments". If it is the latter, then you are VERY SADLY MISTAKEN.

[Belinda]

Do God and accident HAVE TO BE 'alternatives'?

Can they NOT BOTH co-exist, together?

They have to be one or the other. Because either the cosmos is ordered or it's random.

When it is discovered what thee Universe is fundamentally made up of, and how the Universe fundamentally works, then what becomes very clear is how the so-called 'cosmos' could be and is 'ordered randomly', or 'randomly ordered'.

If ANY one is Truly INTERESTED in how this could even be possible, then just let me know.

Maybe, but when I use the word random I mean absolutely devoid of any order or meaning.

"Ordered randomly" and "randomly ordered" is basically ordered.

[seeds]

_______



_______