God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:01 am
My point in the snake and rope analogy;

Theists will insist they saw a real snake [which in reality was a rope] and keep insisting they saw a real snake.
Then they tell the whole village and then the whole world 'that' is a real snake.
After a while there is no way of verifying the truth, so they insist what they claim is the truth, i.e. what they saw was a real snake.

This is the same as hallucination insisting there is a real God [which in reality is an illusion] and keep insisting there is a real existing God.
Okay so far, what they the ''theists'' thought was real was an illusion, it wasn't a real snake.

But my point in the snake and rope analogy...is, like the mirror trick. You cannot see what's looking, you can only see what's seen. So the seen is the mirror in which the looker sees itself and thinks the reflection is who they are. But, the looker, lets call it awareness cannot experience itself as the object seen, it cannot experience itself as the reflection, it is the reflection. The reflection is the experience.
Here we see the reflection as being the ''rope'' and the seer of the reflection (rope)..is the seer (the snake)...

The seer is the real, and the reflection of the seer, is the ''illusory other'' which is unreal....here it is realised that both real and unreal exist together as one in the same experience. This analogy is all that can be knowable. So with this dilemma, nothing can be said about impossibilties as an absolute truth, because real and unreal are two sides of the same reality. And there is no way to differentiate between the apparent two, they are one and the same reality.
You think the seer is the real thing?

As I had demonstrated what you think is the 'seer' is nothing more that a set of neurons that deceive you to think it is real.

The point is whatever you think is real or most real over everything is a deception by the mind.
As I had stated it is tougher to explain and for you to grasp because it is a transcendental feature.
I get this, but I don't think it is relevant to the discussion ..since we know about the tricky that is the mind. The mind is the grand illusionist.This is more to do with how information is coded and received by the brain. The world we see is one big hallucination anyway, it's a projection of informational waves received by the brain and transmitted into living pictures much the same way a Television set works.

The images of the two faces, is typical of the mirror trick, in that the distortion is simply another appearance within consciousness, it's nothing more than another hallucination within the hallucination that is this living sound and light show called the reality of being alive.

At the end of the day both real and unreal exist as one indivisible reality and cannot be separated or negated.
It is very relevant to support the point 'God is an impossibility' because it is an illusion.
The face example above is a clue as to how your mind is deceiving [right now] you with a lie.

Before I revealed to you the truth underlying this illusion, you believe the 'normal' face was real [when it was an illusion]. You have to admit you were deceived with an illusion.
Now you insist God is real, but based on the above demo, your belief 'God is real' can also be an illusion.
You will deny it because you do not have the understanding to accept 'God is real' is actually an illusion.

As I had stated, it is not easy to explain why 'God is real' is an illusion because it happened at the transcendental level and it need deep thinking and reflection to grasp the point.

Until you are able to loosen your resistance [natural] you will never realize you are accepting the lie your mind has make up for you to insist 'God is real' [when in reality God is an illusion] to deal with an inevitable unavoidable psychological existential crisis.

This is not wishful thinking because Buddhism has explained this lie of an illusory God since 2,500 years ago and the Jains long before that.

Thus the focus should be psychology, preferable neuro-psychological rather than theological or metaphysics.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
You think the seer is the real thing?
Seeing is real, yes.

But as soon as you try to analyse how seeing is seeing by mentioning the existience of decieving neurons is getting into conceptual story again..it's attempting to make the seer into a conceptual object which is not real...that's the deception. The seeing is not a deception,the seeing cannot be negated here. The known objects purpose is to inform the illusory nature of it's existence leaving the real to reveal itself.
In the same sense you cannot see your orginal face without a mirror. The reflection is not the real face, but the seer of the reflection is the real face, it's a faceless face...it's real.

Lets remember, energy is at play here, can energy be created or destroyed. Can you that is here right now stop being here right now, and I'm not talking about the appearing temporal you..I'm talking about the absolute you...you are not separate from everything that is the whole of reality that is now.

Can you make the whole of reality disappear? ..if you could then how would you know it had disappeared...so you can't do it, and the reason you can't do it is because what you think you are is a fictional character...and in the absence of that idea/thought, there is right here where it's always been the real you that cannot be snuffed out.

.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Reflex » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:03 am

The simulation hypothesis, which is increasingly taken seriously by the scientific community, undermines VA’s “God is an impossibility” theory.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
Now you insist God is real, but based on the above demo, your belief 'God is real' can also be an illusion.
You will deny it because you do not have the understanding to accept 'God is real' is actually an illusion.
God is a concept, that's not what is being pointed to...Concepts are empty principles. However, this emptiness is full of itself and cannot be negated.

God is not what thought thinks it is.


Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
As I had stated, it is not easy to explain why 'God is real' is an illusion because it happened at the transcendental level and it need deep thinking and reflection to grasp the point.
an inevitable unavoidable psychological existential crisis.
This you that is having the inevitable unavoidable psychological existential crisis - and trying to explain itself is a conceptual story appeaing in the real you, it's an artifical programme written in by evolution as part of the play of consciousness. Consciousness is real. You do not have consciousness, consciousness has you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
This is not wishful thinking because Buddhism has explained this lie of an illusory God since 2,500 years ago and the Jains long before that.
Buddhism and Jains is just another of a mulitude of conceptual stories.

Life has no story, life has no name, no attribute, no anything, no questions, no answers... although all these conceptual stories,things are inseparable from it.

The illusion is real, no matter how much you try to deny it.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:27 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
You think the seer is the real thing?
Seeing is real, yes.

But as soon as you try to analyse how seeing is seeing by mentioning the existience of decieving neurons is getting into conceptual story again..it's attempting to make the seer into a conceptual object which is not real...that's the deception. The seeing is not a deception,the seeing cannot be negated here. The known objects purpose is to inform the illusory nature of it's existence leaving the real to reveal itself.
In the same sense you cannot see your orginal face without a mirror. The reflection is not the real face, but the seer of the reflection is the real face, it's a faceless face...it's real.
You still cannot get it.

As I had demonstrated you were deceived by your mind to see the deformed face [X] as a real normal face [Y].
You think Y is real when it it not.

Now you state the faceless face is real [Y].
But the fact is this faceless face [Y] that you think is real is merely a resultant transcendental illusion.
In this case there is no [X] because its basis is thought not something empirical.
Lets remember, energy is at play here, can energy be created or destroyed. Can you that is here right now stop being here right now, and I'm not talking about the appearing temporal you..I'm talking about the absolute you...you are not separate from everything that is the whole of reality that is now.

Can you make the whole of reality disappear? ..if you could then how would you know it had disappeared...so you can't do it, and the reason you can't do it is because what you think you are is a fictional character...and in the absence of that idea/thought, there is right here where it's always been the real you that cannot be snuffed out.
Energy is an empirical concept which can be verified by Science.

Your faceless face is not an empirical concept by a transcendental idea so you cannot conflate these two things of different perspectives.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:31 am

Reflex wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:03 am
The simulation hypothesis, which is increasingly taken seriously by the scientific community, undermines VA’s “God is an impossibility” theory.
What is a scientific theory which at best is merely polished conjectures [Popper].
Scientific theories are definitely useful but they are very conditional to the Framework and System of Science that has to make certain assumptions of reality.

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:40 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
Now you insist God is real, but based on the above demo, your belief 'God is real' can also be an illusion.
You will deny it because you do not have the understanding to accept 'God is real' is actually an illusion.
God is a concept, that's not what is being pointed to...Concepts are empty principles. However, this emptiness is full of itself and cannot be negated.

God is not what thought thinks it is.
All you do is keep say God is a concept [to me God is not a concept but a philosophical idea] that cannot be negated.
You cannot provide any argument to substantiate it at all.
You are merely wishing it to be so which is compelled by a psychological drive.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
As I had stated, it is not easy to explain why 'God is real' is an illusion because it happened at the transcendental level and it need deep thinking and reflection to grasp the point.
an inevitable unavoidable psychological existential crisis.
This you that is having the inevitable unavoidable psychological existential crisis - and trying to explain itself is a conceptual story appeaing in the real you, it's an artifical programme written in by evolution as part of the play of consciousness. Consciousness is real. You do not have consciousness, consciousness has you.
There is an real empirical 'you' but there is no absolute 'you' especially a 'you' that survives physical death to heaven or somewhere else.

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,

Image
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:21 am
This is not wishful thinking because Buddhism has explained this lie of an illusory God since 2,500 years ago and the Jains long before that.
Buddhism and Jains is just another of a mulitude of conceptual stories.

Life has no story, life has no name, no attribute, no anything, no questions, no answers... although all these conceptual stories,things are inseparable from it.
Again you are running out of argument on this.
You could have at least mentioned which core principles of Buddhism and Jainism are wrong.
The illusion is real, no matter how much you try to deny it.
An illusion is something that is false.
What is real are the neural processes that produce that illusion.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:26 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:27 am
You still cannot get it.
The only thing I get is there is nothing to get.

.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:40 am
What is real are the neural processes that produce that illusion.
The illusion knowing itself as an illusion, a real illusion.

.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:40 am
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 argment with itself. You cannot argue with a phantom.

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.

.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:40 am
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.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:43 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am
Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
  • 1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection
1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


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

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
It's easy to counter it. Your point is to say that "God is an Impossibility", yet to start off, you assume that he exists, because you use the age old measure, of what they say it is to be a god.
If their version of a god doesn't exist, how could you say you knew the measure of a real god, as mankind might not know of the proper measure of a god. So your whole idea is a falsehood, either you know what they know as criteria to judge their god or you don't know the criteria required in judging a real god. Your suffering from mankind's conceptual limitations, you're using his concepts to disprove his concepts. And to assume that a real god has to necessarily abide by mans concepts, could be folly indeed.

All you really could hope to achieve is to possibly disprove their version of their god, not the existence of a real god. ;-)
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?

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?

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.

The
blue 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.

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.


I am countering the theists' illusory belief that God exists as real.

Note my argument is based on the point that ALL beliefs in God will by default end up with a claim of an absolute and perfect God which is supposed to be real. Any other version of a real absolute and perfect God will be a God that is inferior to another God.

Anyone who claimed a lesser than perfect or absolute God will be subjected to be ridiculed by other theists who claim their God is the greatest.
E.g. Muslims claimed their Allah [as in the Quran] is the greatest and superior than the false Christian God in the current Bible. If the Christians do not claim a perfect and absolute [maximally greatest] God than which no greater exists, then they have to admit their God is inferior to the Islamic God and other theists who claim their God is perfect.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6015
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:25 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:59 am
Good that you agree there is this "psychological drive."
Then why argue against empirically verified biological drive, through the brain, by empirical means?
Note my point below;

And the middle path observes the inherent element of both extremes...religion and no-religion...dogma and no dogma...etc. A Probabilistic interpretation of what constitutes the right set of ethics, foundations for truth, etc. does not allow for a middle path as statistics are merely an observation of actual and potential existences.

Statistics is highly relativistic in these respects and does not provide a constant middle, but effectively observes change relative to changing variables and time.

One cannot argue that a specific drive ended up with theism with theism simultaneously results in that very same drive as a foundation for it. Theism, science, deism...etc. all of these are structures that direct the human condition with the human condition acting as the means of this direction itself from which it is self-measured according to the reason it extends from and derives its own earned judgement on the nature of its being.

Theism, science, deism...etc. are all perspectives which both form the individual and the world around the individual, through the many, and in these respects are directives in themselves. All of these directives, when standing on their own terms, end in contradiction as their ability to maintain any self-directive capacity is inhibited when standing alone. To argue against theism is to argue against the drives of the scientists which made so many discoveries. To argue against science is to argue against the theistic notions of truth, through dogma, the scientists seek to acclaim.

You can continually seek seperating one from another, but eventually this seperation will result in such an expansion of knowledge that they will have to inevitably reabsorb into one another as "one" considering the all proceed from "one" measure of reason founded in both one and unity.

The problem of the psychological drive leading to extremes is premised in all the above perspectives and cannot be limited to theism alone if one is to maintain the same balance one seeks to acheive....Balance is unity and unity is "the all".

This "psychological drive" can also drive humans to the extreme.
For example the hunger drive compels humans to eat but they must eat reasonably but some are driven to gluttony and end with obesity resulting in all sort of diseases and early premature death.
This is why the middle path to avoid staying in the extreme is necessary.

I agree the psychological drive of existentiality that end up with theism is of critical necessity for the majority to deal with an existential crisis since the past till now.
However the reality is the cons of the necessary theism is outweighing its pros as we evolve into the future.
To avoid the terrible evils associated with theism we need to divert the existential psychological drive to non-theistic beliefs and practices that do not have any side effects of evil at all.

I am not saying all theistic beliefs has evil potentials.
What happen is the presence of theism as a whole embolden the cancerous and malignant aspects [e.g. Islam and others] to do damage to humanity.
The same argument applies to the sciences if one is to look at the horrors embedded in their history.


And atheism does not, as a whole, have the same effects?
I did not deny this.
Non-theists commit a wide range of evils which must be addressed but they are off topic for this OP.

Actually they are not off topic considering "God is an impossibility" is a premise of atheistic thought.
The point that there are non-theistic approaches without evil side effects to deal with the inherent existential crisis give hope that theism can be weaned off and be replaced with those benign non-theistic approaches.
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.



What is benign about atheism's continual negation of divinity. If God does not exist, but truth does through man, but man cannot be divine, then the approaches necessitated are merely forms of negation.

A .0001% probability observes that through the course of time all potentialities, including the .0001, are actualities.
That .0001% probability where provided is not an actuality of reality but rather an acknowledgement of humility by humans as limited being.
I assert 1 + 1 = 2 but with provision of 0.001% it may not be true absolutely.

Then what absolutes can come from the human condition in the face of nothingness unless the act of reason is in itself the means to which we give structure to ourselves and the reality around us? If this is the case and reason is the means through humanity as the means, then the human condition can neither be elevated nor brought below the nature of existence as this "meaning" observes a point of origin.

1+1=2 being right 99.999% of the time is absolute in the fact of all existence as it is a structural extension of all existence.

All being is absolute in the respect it exists through the 1 as the extension of the one, with any deficiency merely being an observation of relation.

1+1=2 can be observed as a probabilistic statement in the respect the statement in itself is a variable. 1+1=2 if and only if it is an extension of some empirical truth or part of a larger sequence in arithmetic.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Reflex » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:31 am
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.
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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:25 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:43 am
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.

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.

'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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests