God is an Impossibility

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again you are running out of argument on this.
You could have at least mentioned which core principles of Buddhism and Jainism are wrong.

Oneness has no argument with itself. You cannot argue with a phantom.

This is what I have been trying to state, i.e. your oneness is phantom.
A phantom is not a real thing, there is no need to prove a phantom do not exists.

There comes a time when this is realised by no one, and all that's left is ''what is'' ..that cannot be denied, nor proven wrong, nor right, nor negated.

You are still stuck in story land. You are attempting to discuss this with another sage...sages cannot talk to each other, there is nothing there in the other for them to bounce off.

This "'what is" is all wishful thinking.
Else show me proofs to substantiate its existence?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is once a person has an understanding of that inevitable unavoidable psychological existential crisis one can weaned off the idea of God that correspondingly has a negative baggage of potential evils to humanity. Not by you but note this resultant of a belief in an illusory God,

Okay, lets start with this ''person'' who you are purporting to hold to a belief in an illusory God.

Who or what is that person?

Lets just get straight to the point here.

I had mentioned I was into Advaita Vedanta for a long time.
The above is the approach one question to understand one as Atman that is to be merged with Brahman. To a limited extent I agree with it but I have graduated from that.
So don't waste my time on it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So weaning off of theism helps one to deal with the existential crisis, because theism is the problem. Hence non-theism has no existential crisis? But if that is the case, and non-theism has no existential crisis, then theism is it's existential crisis and the problem is less of one or the other as both sides have existential crisis but rather the nature of the existential crisis under the six dimensions of "who/what/when/where/how/why?" as questions.

You missed my point.
ALL humans has the potential for the 'existential crisis' while most has active tendencies, some are less effected by it.

The majority of human cling to theism to deal with the active existential crisis. However theism has pros and cons. The cons of theism are outweighing its pros and that will be a threat to humanity, e.g. the stats below and the whole load of other evils from other theists;



That is why we need to wean off theism and replace it with fool proof alternatives to deal with that INHERENT UNAVOIDABLE existential crisis.

Non-theists also has that INHERENT UNAVOIDABLE existential crisis and they dealt with it via secular means [drugs, politics, various ideologies, etc.] which also has its pros and cons. Thus we have to wean off the evil elements within the non-theists BUT this is off topic to this 'Religious' forum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My "God is impossibility theory" is based on a whole gamut of necessary knowledge which include philosophical as fundamental plus Science, psychology and others.

It’s based on a lie, a strong identification with an illusion.

Show proofs and arguments??

to me God is not a concept but a philosophical idea

Sure about that? “Concept” refers to a procedure or an abstract idea; “idea” refers to a mental impression or plan formed by mental effort.

There are always a range of meanings to words and there is no absolute meaning for any one word. It is a matter of presenting one reasonable definition and acceptance by others.

Since we are in a philosophical forum,
I have always qualified my use of 'idea' is of the philosophical perspective as used by many philosophers, in this case Kant, Plato, and others.

The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] is Plato's argument that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

[Reflex]

My "God is impossibility theory" is based on a whole gamut of necessary knowledge which include philosophical as fundamental plus Science, psychology and others.

It’s based on a lie, a strong identification with an illusion.

Show proofs and arguments??

Why? I could refer you to “A Course in Consciousness, but you won’t learn anything. I’ve come to expect your demand for something you never proffer: proofs and arguments. But who/what is making that demand?

There are always a range of meanings to words and there is no absolute meaning for any one word. It is a matter of presenting one reasonable definition and acceptance by others.

Since we are in a philosophical forum,
I have always qualified my use of 'idea' is of the philosophical perspective as used by many philosophers, in this case Kant, Plato, and others.

The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] is Plato's argument that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Get back to me when you know what you’re talking about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Get back to me when you know what you’re talking about.

How can I get back to you when you do not know what you are talking about?

[Dontaskme]

Oneness has no argument with itself. You cannot argue with a phantom.

This is what I have been trying to state, i.e. your oneness is phantom.
A phantom is not a real thing, there is no need to prove a phantom do not exists.

Oneness is not mine...you said ''your oneness'' implying oneness is owned by something?

This that is conceptual language is creating the illusion that there is an I existing?
Is this what you mean?

This "'what is" is all wishful thinking.
Else show me proofs to substantiate its existence?

Via concept...in it's conception?

There is an awareness, a knowing of this conception..as and through conceptual language?

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oneness has no argument with itself. You cannot argue with a phantom.

This is what I have been trying to state, i.e. your oneness is phantom.
A phantom is not a real thing, there is no need to prove a phantom do not exists.

Oneness is not mine...you said ''your oneness'' implying oneness is owned by something?

This that is conceptual language is creating the illusion that there is an I existing?
Is this what you mean?

This "'what is" is all wishful thinking.
Else show me proofs to substantiate its existence?

Via concept...in it's conception?

There is an awareness, a knowing of this conception..as and through conceptual language?

'Your oneness' refer to your belief of 'oneness' or whatever that may be.
This idea of oneness [in this case] is a transcendental illusion created by your mind to dupe you by deception in thinking it is something very real.

This deception is based on the same mental process as how your mind had duped you to realize that face image is normal when in reality it is not normal.
The deception of a real God [which is illusory] is more difficult to realize the deception because it is related to pure thoughts only at the transcendental level.

Frankly, for philosophy sake, you should venture to try to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am trying to communicate to you instead of resisting, deflecting and denial it outright.

[Dontaskme]

'Your oneness' refer to your belief of 'oneness' or whatever that may be.

There is something aware of the belief, else the belief could not be expressed via language or symbol?

'This idea of oneness [in this case] is a transcendental illusion created by your mind to dupe you by deception in thinking it is something very real.

But does it matter whether this mind is real or not? ...does it change anything...what is typing these words right now, what is reading these words right now, what is translating these words into meaning right now?

Can that which is doing..be known and by what?

This deception is based on the same mental process as how your mind had duped you to realize that face image is normal when in reality it is not normal.

There was an awareness of the image. This awareness was not looking for differences. The differences only became apparent to awareness when knowledge of differences became known. What happened is the not-knowing divided into knowing via the mind, the mind is that which divides that which is indivisible...the illusion is the mind, not the awareness.

Frankly, for philosophy sake, you should venture to try to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am trying to communicate to you instead of resisting, deflecting and denial it outright.

Not denying anything you say, you are the one being defensive, you request me to try and understand you, and all I'm doing is requesting same from you. I've said your theory is an epic fail, ..I've already admitted mine is too when we attempt to point to the ineffable using concepts.
You need not get defensive here, there is nothing to lose in this conversation, because we all exist in the same one reality.




And philosophy pertains to thinking and thoughts, which you have repeatedly said is an illusion...so what's the point in trying to understand an illusion that only serves to decieve what we are trying to understand?

What is it that you want me to understand that I don't already understand?

The only thing I understand is that there is nothing to understand.



.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Nope, I did not assume God exists.

Actually you did!

You assumed theirs existed by arguing against their version of a god.

Since no version of a god has ever been proven, you've taken their word for what he is and what he must be. That's assuming he exists. For instance if in fact "he" exists "he" may not be a "he" at all, rather an "it." Why has man made their god a "he" because historically "males" have ruled. So it must be a "he" right? Wrong, not necessarily, males only ever ruled because they could kill anyone that said otherwise, hence our never ending wars! Creators?

I did not assume God exists.

What kind of logic are you using when you made this statement?
"You assumed theirs existed by arguing against their version of a god."

You are implying if anyone argue against any views then they are assuming they agree with the other argument.
This is if I disagree with those who claim the Earth is flat, then I am assuming the 'Earth is flat'.
If someone is crazy enough to claim a Round Square exists, then when I countered this point, then I am assuming a Round Square exists?

Note, there are all sorts of attributes given to God, i.e. he, she, it, that, whatever. But the default is God has to be absolutely perfect.
Your examples of absurdity above are apples where I was speaking of oranges. The difference between an argument about a creators existence, and all those things you mentioned above, (and I've already said it), is that earth being a spheroid is a "KNOWN FACT" And what is a square and what is a circle are man made "KNOWN FACTS." On the other hand the question of their version of a god, is purely "SPECULATION" so it can be "ANY DAMNED THING!" Understand?? You're not arguing against FACTS, you're arguing against FANTASY, and when you give their FANTASY any weight at all, you pay credence to that FANTASY! But then that's much easier than taking on a real creator or unknown parameters.

Also the scope of your intent if far too wide, you could never "prove" that a creator of the universe doesn't exist, if their version is a total falsehood, you could only ever hope to discredit their version of their god.

I'm simply saying that, by default, if one argues against a particular version of an unknown, they lend credence to that empty version, not necessarily the real thing.

They don't know it exists. As them to prove it and they come up with some lame thing that can easily be explained or they seem delusional. No one can "prove" there is a creator, and likewise, no one can "prove" there isn't one.

The burden to prove there is no creator of the universe is much, much greater than simply proving that their false stories of their god are impossible.

So your topic should read: Historical beliefs of a God are impossible. Or something similar.

Perfection, as seen by man, which is obviously how "he's" been modeled, may not be how "it" is. For instance, why would man see perfection as being all knowing. Simply because man is not. Which defines perfection in mans mind, but that might not be what "it" is at all. "It" could have simply been that singularity that supposedly caused the big bang, yet it set in motion the universes physics such that they are, so as to eventually combine stardust forming life. To assume that mans version of a god is the one you must formulate an argument against, assumes their god is real and the only way "it" can be. Why, because schizophrenics, epileptics and some that were getting tired of being crucified based on hearsay, together wrote a book, such that all that fear death swear, it's proof of the creator? Really?

Note it is not perfection 'seen' by man but it is perfection 'reasoned' by man.
Good point. Who is to necessarily know that when I said "see," I meant by the minds eye.


'May not be how "it is"?
If God is not absolutely perfect, then how "it is" other than absolutely perfect? The alternative can only be less perfect. You tell me what else can God be other than absolutely perfect?

As such, it's impossible for you to formulate any real argument proving a creator of this universe doesn't or hasn't existed. You can only every hope to prove that their "version of their god" is false, and that's the fullest extent of it.

Note I am not proving God do not exists directly.
I am proving the question of 'God exists' is a non-starter.
There is no need to prove 'God does not exist' because the idea of God is an illusion, thus moot.
You don't 'know' that, thus you can't say that. Of the unknown, man cannot speak with certainty, but often he does. Once he said, 'the earth was flat,' instead of, 'I don't know the shape of the earth.' Now we know that indeed it's a spheroid.

This is like the concept of a square-circle.
One knows the concept of a square-circle is a contradiction [nonsense] thus any intention to prove such exists is default moot, i.e. a non-starter.

The idea of an illusory God [transcendental falsehood] is like that of the concept of a square-circle [empirical falsehood]. Both are non-starters as far as any claim to their real existence.
There's a big difference between saying, "that doesn't exist" and, "you can't 'know' that doesn't exist!"

Theblue above is where you've proven my point. You've assumed that their assumptions are necessarily correct. Why give them so much, just to then attempt to take it away. You lost when you gave them anything at all, when you believed only in their version of their god. For all we know, If "it's" real, "it's" thoughts may create singularities, which in turn create big bangs, etc. And it, the creator of universes, could care less. Maybe that's imperfect by mans measure, but then relative to the universe and that which is the cause of it's existence, mankind is quite insignificant indeed, why should man necessarily know what "it" must be.

I have not assumed their assumptions are necessarily correct.
Note the idea of a God is a moot and a non-starter as far as realness is concern.
You speak as if you know of everything that is real, when in fact no human does. Man cannot speak of the unknown with any amount of certainty. He can only speak of possibility. And as we humans exist and can be creators, there could be existence of creators on a much larger and smaller scale. That we don't know of their existence, has no necessary bearing on their existence.

By what word or measure of simply men, is necessarily representative, of a "creator" of this universe? And who is to really say?
By the way I'm an Agnostic. I see that neither theists nor atheists can "prove" a creator exists/has existed or not. All each has is their belief. And they fight for their belief based upon fear and/or freedom from tyranny.

You are right, I countered the idea of God for freedom from tyranny and evil acts [very evident] by SOME theists who are inspired by the words of their God.

Btw, have you researched [psychologically] on why people are agnostic on the idea of God which is illusory? There is a lot to this.
I don't care what anyone has said about agnostics. I use the word to describe myself as it's the closest thing to what I 'know,' not simply believe, I'm aligned with. You can't 'know' that it's illusory, you can only believe it's illusory. Until man can circumnavigate the entirety of the universe, understanding it fully, he is an intellectual infant.

Note again,
I am not proving God do not exists directly.
I am proving the question of 'God exists' is a non-starter.
There is no need to prove 'God does not exist' because the idea of God is an illusion, thus moot.
You can't 'know' that it's illusory, you can only believe it's illusory. If you disagree then you have no accurate understanding of what knowledge is.

[Eodnhoj7]

So weaning off of theism helps one to deal with the existential crisis, because theism is the problem. Hence non-theism has no existential crisis? But if that is the case, and non-theism has no existential crisis, then theism is it's existential crisis and the problem is less of one or the other as both sides have existential crisis but rather the nature of the existential crisis under the six dimensions of "who/what/when/where/how/why?" as questions.

You missed my point.
ALL humans has the potential for the 'existential crisis' while most has active tendencies, some are less effected by it.

The majority of human cling to theism to deal with the active existential crisis. However theism has pros and cons. The cons of theism are outweighing its pros and that will be a threat to humanity, e.g. the stats below and the whole load of other evils from other theists;



That is why we need to wean off theism and replace it with fool proof alternatives to deal with that INHERENT UNAVOIDABLE existential crisis.

Non-theists also has that INHERENT UNAVOIDABLE existential crisis and they dealt with it via secular means [drugs, politics, various ideologies, etc.] which also has its pros and cons. Thus we have to wean off the evil elements within the non-theists BUT this is off topic to this 'Religious' forum.

If the existential crisis is unavoidable...then there is no way of dealing with it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Your oneness' refer to your belief of 'oneness' or whatever that may be.

There is something aware of the belief, else the belief could not be expressed via language or symbol?

Note this analogy re a team and team-spirit.
Normally 'oneness' is associated with the team-spirit of a team of different individuals that operate and co-ordinate to work as ONE unit.
Take a basketball team; the oneness is active when the team of 5 players go onto to court to compete against its opponent. When the team members go home they are merely individuals and there is no oneness of team spirit at all.

There is oneness in say a symphony orchestra where all the instrumental players play in tune and alignment with the conductor. Once they instrumental players stop playing there is no more oneness.
There is no constant or permanent 'oneness' or 'thatness' of a symphony orchestra which play the music and exist at all times.

There is also 'oneness' [the empirical 'I'] within the individual person where the brain and the mind works together in alignment to bring about awareness and consciousness.
There is no more oneness when the individual dies [all organs failed] or when the person is mentally sick to the extent to losing one's self [oneness].

Thus the above oneness is an emergence and resultant as conditioned by the typical human conditions.

Where you go wrong is when you reify and think this conditional oneness is something more permanent within the individual. This is an illusion generated by the brain to dupe the person for certain existential reason.

That oneness is the same for the Universe which is an emergence and resultant from the individual's oneness [emergence and resultant'.
However the brain and mind dupe the individual to think there is a permanent oneness which they grasp as a God which is an illusion.

'This idea of oneness [in this case] is a transcendental illusion created by your mind to dupe you by deception in thinking it is something very real.

But does it matter whether this mind is real or not? ...does it change anything...what is typing these words right now, what is reading these words right now, what is translating these words into meaning right now?

Can that which is doing..be known and by what?

That 'what' that is translating these words into meaning right now is the like how the musicians get together to produce good harmonized music.
That 'what' is an emergence and resultant from the activities of your body parts and it exists as long as your body parts is alive and active in the right conditions.
That 'what' is not something permanent within yourself.

This deception is based on the same mental process as how your mind had duped you to realize that face image is normal when in reality it is not normal.

There was an awareness of the image. This awareness was not looking for differences. The differences only became apparent to awareness when knowledge of differences became known. What happened is the not-knowing divided into knowing via the mind, the mind is that which divides that which is indivisible...the illusion is the mind, not the awareness.

You missed my point here.
What I am stating is your thinking that God is real is actually a deception by your mind and awareness [which are temporary things] to make you think God is real when there is no such thing as a real God.

Frankly, for philosophy sake, you should venture to try to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am trying to communicate to you instead of resisting, deflecting and denial it outright.

Not denying anything you say, you are the one being defensive, you request me to try and understand you, and all I'm doing is requesting same from you. I've said your theory is an epic fail, ..I've already admitted mine is too when we attempt to point to the ineffable using concepts.
You need not get defensive here, there is nothing to lose in this conversation, because we all exist in the same one reality.

And philosophy pertains to thinking and thoughts, which you have repeatedly said is an illusion...so what's the point in trying to understand an illusion that only serves to decieve what we are trying to understand?

What is it that you want me to understand that I don't already understand?

The only thing I understand is that there is nothing to understand.

I understand your thinking of a real God because I have gone through that before.
I told you I was in Advaita Vedanta [Jnana] for a long time.

The point is you are claiming what is supposed to be an illusion [God] to be a real God.
I suggest you try to understand rather than reject it outright.
I have already given loads of clues in my posting but I know it is difficult for you to understand due your current state of mind.

Note for example, if I had not told you the underlying truth behind the distorted face demonstration, you would have insisted you saw a normal face and insisted that is the truth all the way! You will insist that distorted face is a 'normal' to your whole village and the world without realizing you are telling a 'lie' out of ignorance.

The FACT you can learn from the above demonstration is the principle that the human mind is VERY deceptive, and this is due to the manifestation of the inherent existential crisis. The mind has to be deceptive for survival sake.

Now my claim is the idea of God which is an illusion arise from the same principle as demonstrated above, i.e. the human mind has deceive theists to think there is a real God where there is no real God.
Why the mind is deceiving theists [a critical necessity] arise from the mother of all manifestation of the inherent existential crisis.
Note the human mind also deceives the self in other non-theistic circumstances where it is critical to do so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
plus this;
P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24751

So far no one has given any convincing counter to my argument.

I don't think they need to. It's not a convincing argument. You say in the second thread:

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.

It is true that many christians are persuaded by Anselm's or Descartes' ontological argument, but the genealogy of the perfect god is fundamentally a theological arms race. As Xenophanes said:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

There are plenty of practical reasons why you would want your god to be more badass than your neighbours', but none of them involve any logical imperative. It's only when the hard of thinking insist that their really, really badass god is the source of objective morality that they are committed to a perfect god.

I agree with you [which is very obvious] my argument will not work with those who accept a less than perfect God which are few among humanity.

The majority of theists are from the Abrahamic religions which make up 4+ billion of the 7+ billion people on Earth. The Hindu Brahman is also viewed as Absolute and perfect. It the same with the Bahais and other theistic religions.
My proof of God is Impossible is effectively targeted toward the Abrahamic religions especially Islam which is a potential threat to humanity.

As for those who claim a less than perfect God, I still have different ace card to counter their claims, i.e. bring the relevant evidence to prove the existence of their God. Even since the emergence of humans, no one has been able to prove the existence of God.
I am very certain 99.999% there is no way they can bring any proofs to verify the existence of their less than perfect God.
Note it is a very common acceptance by theists, that their belief in God is based on faith not proofs nor reason.

It is inherent in the nature of humans to strive for the ideal, i.e. perfection.
Those who are ignorant of their own inherent propensity for perfection will stick to a lesser than perfect God, but when they are enlightened to it, they will logically prefer a perfect God.

Humanly and rationally, which human as theist would want their god to be inferior to another more superior and vulnerable to be dominated by the more superior god and likely to be forced to kill the arse of the superior God.
The avoidance of the above is so easy, i.e. just change the quality of their existing God to a perfect God.

[Dontaskme]

Note it is a very common acceptance by theists, that their belief in God is based on faith not proofs nor reason.

Does Veritas Aequitas exist?

.

[Ramu]

Oneness has no argument with itself. You cannot argue with a phantom.

This is what I have been trying to state, i.e. your oneness is phantom.
A phantom is not a real thing, there is no need to prove a phantom do not exists.

Oneness is not mine...you said ''your oneness'' implying oneness is owned by something?

This that is conceptual language is creating the illusion that there is an I existing?
Is this what you mean?

This "'what is" is all wishful thinking.
Else show me proofs to substantiate its existence?

Via concept...in it's conception?

There is an awareness, a knowing of this conception..as and through conceptual language?

'Your oneness' refer to your belief of 'oneness' or whatever that may be.
This idea of oneness [in this case] is a transcendental illusion created by your mind to dupe you by deception in thinking it is something very real.

This deception is based on the same mental process as how your mind had duped you to realize that face image is normal when in reality it is not normal.
The deception of a real God [which is illusory] is more difficult to realize the deception because it is related to pure thoughts only at the transcendental level.

Frankly, for philosophy sake, you should venture to try to understand [not necessary agree with] what I am trying to communicate to you instead of resisting, deflecting and denial it outright.
[/quote

]You're conflating religion with non duality. Its not a belief system. Its based on direct experience.