God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Nick_A » Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:26 pm

Veritas
I believe in general [not you personally] all humans must understand the principles, basis and mechanics of their action, especially their quest to experience its source and whatever.
When people do not understand the principles, basis and mechanics of their actions in this case, then such terrible events of evil and violence happened and will continue to happen;
Quite true. But what should be done when a person consciously experiences their hypocrisy and their helplessness in front of it? Is it better just to go with the flow and say whatever will be will be as is the norm?
There is no such thing as absolute universal truths but only relative truths conditioned upon the human conditions. There is no way you can prove the existence of absolute universal truths that can exists by themselves which are absolute independent of the human conditions
Here we have to agree to disagree. For example I would say that objective justice is a reality based on the interactions of universal laws regardless of Man’s existence. I presume you would say that justice only exists as a human interpretation regarding Man’s actions.
Note Einstein's intuition is still within the human conditions. Thus any thoughts from human intuition are conditioned by humans and they do not appear from nowhere.
Whatever positives from Einstein intuitions they had be justified to be true before acceptance by the scientific community.
Quite true. Plato wrote of anamnesis or remembrance of what has been forgotten. The experience of noesis and intuition IMO is just soul knowledge. It is remembering what has been forgotten.

I am attracted to Panentheism which believes nature is in God as opposed to Pantheism which believes God in nature. But that is another topic.
God is an Impossibility.
Theism in whatever forms and degrees is grounded in the psychology of the existential crisis.
Once we understand the principles, basis and mechanics of theism within psychology, then it is possible to mitigate the terrible evil and violent acts from SOME theists who are evil prone and inspired directly by the texts of some religions.
I agree that in some cases people remain in religion because of fear. But what of those who pursue religion because they are driven to experience “meaning?” Is this really an existential crisis or just a normal drive? Simone Weil had a need for meaning. Is she describing an existential crisis or just the need of a more awakened human being?
"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©
Do you believe that the need to experience a quality of meaning not found in the world is really an existential crisis as opposed to just a normal psychological need?
You think you have universal truths but that is PRIMARILY only for your selfish quests to soothe your personal existential crisis. What good has come out of it for humanity in general in contrast against, for example, the positives from empirical Science?
I no longer have an existential crisis. At one time in my life I did. As a working musician I found meaning in egoistic expression and alcohol. I found flaws in all philosophy and religion I was exposed to so cynicism was just a normal way for a creative person to tolerate the absurd world I was living in. Then I was fortunate to learn that I was not alone and there have always been people with the same questions but far more advanced than me. So rather than the world making no sense, the world was exactly as it had to be from a universal perspective. I had always been lacking the third dimension of thought necessary to make sense out of the absurd. Once I experienced it, I knew what was necessary to acquire “understanding.”

Is the need to learn as a being in search of meaning really an existential crisis? I don’t believe so anymore than the need for food and water is a crisis as long as it is available.
My views are not focus only in the pragmatic but what is to be pragmatic is guided by impossible ideals, e.g. perpetual peace for the World, perfect health, etc. to drive continuous improvements.
But the trouble is that when we don’t understand the problem, how can we strive for improvements?

The same things have been written before, are written now, and will be in the future, yet nothing really changes other than in form. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. If we don’t understand what and why we are, why should anything change?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:20 am

Duh.. lost my whole response. Here a new shorten version.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:26 pm
Veritas
I believe in general [not you personally] all humans must understand the principles, basis and mechanics of their action, especially their quest to experience its source and whatever.
When people do not understand the principles, basis and mechanics of their actions in this case, then such terrible events of evil and violence happened and will continue to happen;
Quite true. But what should be done when a person consciously experiences their hypocrisy and their helplessness in front of it? Is it better just to go with the flow and say whatever will be will be as is the norm?
Obviously one must be wise enough to flow positively and progressively.
Note this;
In positive psychology, flow, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
As such one need to understand the principles, basis and mechanics of their actions especially where there are negatives associated with it.

It is a fact there are terrible evil and violent acts associated with theism in general committed by a significant SOME in the name of God. This is the real hypocrisy and their pretension in closing their eyes to such evil acts.

DNA wise ALL human beings has the inherent potential of an existential crisis within their brain. Thus you or I cannot deny this existential crisis within us. The difference is the degree of activeness of such an existential crisis and how one is dealing with it.

I agree theism is an effective methods to deal with the existential crisis but theism has its pros and cons. The threat is the current trend is indicating the cons of theism as a whole are outweighing its pros. Note the terrible evil and violent acts associated with theism in general. I understand your views are that of panentheism which is more advance and benign, but it is nevertheless a part of the whole set.

Thus we need new fool proof methods [no evil nor violent potential at all] to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
At present the average human is only using a small potential of the human brain/mind.
I believe humanity can increase the IQ, EQ, philosophy quotients and other faculties in many folds to a point we can co-established objective moral principles as guides to improve human behaviors.
We don't need any moral standards or meanings from an illusory entity like God.

I don't see how your existing views are beneficial to humanity in the future. Show me how can your current view assist humanity in the long run?
What your views serve are your selfish needs to soothe your existential crisis.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5038
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:29 am

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?
You have no proof for perfection as a 100 percent score is subject to a context, change the context and the score changes. Context is absolute, the variety of contexts is relative.

There is no empirical evidence of your perfection without changing definitions.

God is purely assumed and God as assuming (all in all) is reflected within the faculties of existence as contexts assuming contexts. This occurs at the psychological scale as well as the empirical (one form of matter is imprinted by and imprints another form, ie sand imprints rock and rock imprints sand).

The definition of God requires "infinity", thus can neither be proven or disproven. As infinity is a sub element of God you are left by default with infinite defintions and fall in a slippery slope in trying to either prove or disprove God.

If God is both being ane beyond being, and proof is an element of "being" (considering proof exists), then God is proof and beyond proof. As proof God as order is reflected where proof is strictly a defined framework of how some facet of creation "works".

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:29 am
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?
You have no proof for perfection as a 100 percent score is subject to a context, change the context and the score changes. Context is absolute, the variety of contexts is relative.

There is no empirical evidence of your perfection without changing definitions.
That is my point regarding relative perfections. In a subjective situation, if one changes the context the score will change.
However in an objective tests, the right answers are already predetermined by humans, thus 100/100 relative perfect score is a possibility but this is not an absolute perfection.
God is purely assumed and God as assuming (all in all) is reflected within the faculties of existence as contexts assuming contexts. This occurs at the psychological scale as well as the empirical (one form of matter is imprinted by and imprints another form, ie sand imprints rock and rock imprints sand).

The definition of God requires "infinity", thus can neither be proven or disproven. As infinity is a sub element of God you are left by default with infinite defintions and fall in a slippery slope in trying to either prove or disprove God.

If God is both being ane beyond being, and proof is an element of "being" (considering proof exists), then God is proof and beyond proof. As proof God as order is reflected where proof is strictly a defined framework of how some facet of creation "works".
I am not proving God do not exists.
I am proving the idea of God existing as real is a non-starter.
Again you are not in tune with the OP.

I have stated the applicable definition of God used in the above is the ontological God where infinity is not applicable.
As usual I am talking apples and you deflect and muddle the point with 'oranges'.
You are not addressing P1 nor P2 directly.

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:03 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:29 am
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?
You have no proof for perfection as a 100 percent score is subject to a context, change the context and the score changes. Context is absolute, the variety of contexts is relative.

There is no empirical evidence of your perfection without changing definitions.
That is my point regarding relative perfections. In a subjective situation, if one changes the context the score will change.
However in an objective tests, the right answers are already predetermined by humans, thus 100/100 relative perfect score is a possibility but this is not an absolute perfection.
God is purely assumed and God as assuming (all in all) is reflected within the faculties of existence as contexts assuming contexts. This occurs at the psychological scale as well as the empirical (one form of matter is imprinted by and imprints another form, ie sand imprints rock and rock imprints sand).

The definition of God requires "infinity", thus can neither be proven or disproven. As infinity is a sub element of God you are left by default with infinite defintions and fall in a slippery slope in trying to either prove or disprove God.

If God is both being ane beyond being, and proof is an element of "being" (considering proof exists), then God is proof and beyond proof. As proof God as order is reflected where proof is strictly a defined framework of how some facet of creation "works".
I am not proving God do not exists.
I am proving the idea of God existing as real is a non-starter.
But you are NOT proving this, other than to yourself, at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
Again you are not in tune with the OP.
And you are not in to any thing else other than what you already BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
I have stated the applicable definition of God used in the above is the ontological God where infinity is not applicable.
As usual I am talking apples and you deflect and muddle the point with 'oranges'.
You are not addressing P1 nor P2 directly.
P1 IS wrong AND false. Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS. 'you' are just too blinded to recognize and see IT. This is because of the BELIEFS you are maintaining and dearly holding on to now.

P2 IS True, Right, AND Correct. God IS absolutely perfect. But I KNOW this because I KNOW what God IS.

Therefore, God is a possibility to be real.

I have therefore PROVEN that God is a possibility to be real, once and for all. (See how easy it is to make an argument, and then just say that some thing is already proven to be true?)

ALSO, when God is defined accurately, THEN what God IS, and HOW God actually exists is also SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. (But, unfortunately, 'you', "veritas aequitas", will NEVER comprehend this. Unless of course you learn how to LOOK AT and SEE things other than from your own BELIEFS only.)

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:13 am

Age wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:29 am


You have no proof for perfection as a 100 percent score is subject to a context, change the context and the score changes. Context is absolute, the variety of contexts is relative.

There is no empirical evidence of your perfection without changing definitions.
That is my point regarding relative perfections. In a subjective situation, if one changes the context the score will change.
However in an objective tests, the right answers are already predetermined by humans, thus 100/100 relative perfect score is a possibility but this is not an absolute perfection.
God is purely assumed and God as assuming (all in all) is reflected within the faculties of existence as contexts assuming contexts. This occurs at the psychological scale as well as the empirical (one form of matter is imprinted by and imprints another form, ie sand imprints rock and rock imprints sand).

The definition of God requires "infinity", thus can neither be proven or disproven. As infinity is a sub element of God you are left by default with infinite defintions and fall in a slippery slope in trying to either prove or disprove God.

If God is both being ane beyond being, and proof is an element of "being" (considering proof exists), then God is proof and beyond proof. As proof God as order is reflected where proof is strictly a defined framework of how some facet of creation "works".
I am not proving God do not exists.
I am proving the idea of God existing as real is a non-starter.
But you are NOT proving this, other than to yourself, at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
Again you are not in tune with the OP.
And you are not in to any thing else other than what you already BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
I have stated the applicable definition of God used in the above is the ontological God where infinity is not applicable.
As usual I am talking apples and you deflect and muddle the point with 'oranges'.
You are not addressing P1 nor P2 directly.
P1 IS wrong AND false. Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS. 'you' are just too blinded to recognize and see IT. This is because of the BELIEFS you are maintaining and dearly holding on to now.
A schizo can make the same claim as you are doing above. Fact is many of the mentally ill has done so. One example among the many [thousands];

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

To ensure the credibility of your statement, where is your proof Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS?
P2 IS True, Right, AND Correct. God IS absolutely perfect. But I KNOW this because I KNOW what God IS.

Therefore, God is a possibility to be real.

I have therefore PROVEN that God is a possibility to be real, once and for all. (See how easy it is to make an argument, and then just say that some thing is already proven to be true?)

ALSO, when God is defined accurately, THEN what God IS, and HOW God actually exists is also SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. (But, unfortunately, 'you', "veritas aequitas", will NEVER comprehend this. Unless of course you learn how to LOOK AT and SEE things other than from your own BELIEFS only.)
You could be the same as this fellow below;

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
who claimed he knew God.

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:13 am
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am

That is my point regarding relative perfections. In a subjective situation, if one changes the context the score will change.
However in an objective tests, the right answers are already predetermined by humans, thus 100/100 relative perfect score is a possibility but this is not an absolute perfection.


I am not proving God do not exists.
I am proving the idea of God existing as real is a non-starter.
But you are NOT proving this, other than to yourself, at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
Again you are not in tune with the OP.
And you are not in to any thing else other than what you already BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
I have stated the applicable definition of God used in the above is the ontological God where infinity is not applicable.
As usual I am talking apples and you deflect and muddle the point with 'oranges'.
You are not addressing P1 nor P2 directly.
P1 IS wrong AND false. Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS. 'you' are just too blinded to recognize and see IT. This is because of the BELIEFS you are maintaining and dearly holding on to now.
A schizo can make the same claim as you are doing above. Fact is many of the mentally ill has done so. One example among the many [thousands];

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

So this is what your "argument" comes down to.

If you say some thing opposing what you, yourself, claim, then a "schizo" can make the same claim.

But, would I be right in saying that you also believe, that any one agreeing with what you claim, then a "true intellectual" could make the same claim?

The absurdity of saying; "A schizo can make the same claim", and actually thinking that it has any weight or bearing at all is just about insanity itself.

To ensure the credibility of your statement, where is your proof Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS?
WHERE I have been TELLING YOU it is.

Have you really still NOT yet heard this?

Absolute PERFECTION is in FRONT OF YOU.

I would normally just say LOOK AT what IS, but your words prove that you are just too BLIND to SEE It anyway.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:13 am
P2 IS True, Right, AND Correct. God IS absolutely perfect. But I KNOW this because I KNOW what God IS.

Therefore, God is a possibility to be real.

I have therefore PROVEN that God is a possibility to be real, once and for all. (See how easy it is to make an argument, and then just say that some thing is already proven to be true?)

ALSO, when God is defined accurately, THEN what God IS, and HOW God actually exists is also SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. (But, unfortunately, 'you', "veritas aequitas", will NEVER comprehend this. Unless of course you learn how to LOOK AT and SEE things other than from your own BELIEFS only.)
You could be the same as this fellow below;

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
who claimed he knew God.
I could be. I could also be the same as a "fellow" that is completely brain dead, or I could also be the same some other fellow. In fact I could be the same as many things. But what I COULD BE has NO actual bearing on WHAT I actually AM, which, by the way, ALL OF THIS has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here.

There is a name for LOOKING AT what one is (or could be) and their personality, instead of focusing on the actual argument, itself, correct?

Now where were we, ah that is right, you were saying that you have already proven "God is an impossibility to be real" and that it is even a "none starter". YET, here I am having just proven that 'God is a possibility to be real'. So, where does this leave us now EXACTLY?

Do you have any thing other than; "some fellow COULD claim some thing" OR "you COULD BE the same as this fellow"?

Do you have any ACTUAL things, or like just about EVERY thing else you write it is based on COULD BE things only?

As I say frequently, If you LOOK AT what IS, instead of what COULD BE, then you will SEE the ACTUAL Truth of things, almost instantly.

Do you have any actual thing to counter what I say? Or, would you prefer to just keep LOOKING AT 'me' instead?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:10 am

Age wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:13 am
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:03 am


But you are NOT proving this, other than to yourself, at all.



And you are not in to any thing else other than what you already BELIEVE is true.



P1 IS wrong AND false. Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS. 'you' are just too blinded to recognize and see IT. This is because of the BELIEFS you are maintaining and dearly holding on to now.
A schizo can make the same claim as you are doing above. Fact is many of the mentally ill has done so. One example among the many [thousands];

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

So this is what your "argument" comes down to.

If you say some thing opposing what you, yourself, claim, then a "schizo" can make the same claim.

But, would I be right in saying that you also believe, that any one agreeing with what you claim, then a "true intellectual" could make the same claim?

The absurdity of saying; "A schizo can make the same claim", and actually thinking that it has any weight or bearing at all is just about insanity itself.

To ensure the credibility of your statement, where is your proof Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS?
WHERE I have been TELLING YOU it is.

Have you really still NOT yet heard this?

Absolute PERFECTION is in FRONT OF YOU.

I would normally just say LOOK AT what IS, but your words prove that you are just too BLIND to SEE It anyway.
This is what schizo tell a normal guy he is too blind to see his schizo's friend seating next to him and talking to him.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:13 am
P2 IS True, Right, AND Correct. God IS absolutely perfect. But I KNOW this because I KNOW what God IS.

Therefore, God is a possibility to be real.

I have therefore PROVEN that God is a possibility to be real, once and for all. (See how easy it is to make an argument, and then just say that some thing is already proven to be true?)

ALSO, when God is defined accurately, THEN what God IS, and HOW God actually exists is also SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. (But, unfortunately, 'you', "veritas aequitas", will NEVER comprehend this. Unless of course you learn how to LOOK AT and SEE things other than from your own BELIEFS only.)
You could be the same as this fellow below;

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
who claimed he knew God.
I could be. I could also be the same as a "fellow" that is completely brain dead, or I could also be the same some other fellow. In fact I could be the same as many things. But what I COULD BE has NO actual bearing on WHAT I actually AM, which, by the way, ALL OF THIS has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here.

There is a name for LOOKING AT what one is (or could be) and their personality, instead of focusing on the actual argument, itself, correct?

Now where were we, ah that is right, you were saying that you have already proven "God is an impossibility to be real" and that it is even a "none starter". YET, here I am having just proven that 'God is a possibility to be real'. So, where does this leave us now EXACTLY?

Do you have any thing other than; "some fellow COULD claim some thing" OR "you COULD BE the same as this fellow"?

Do you have any ACTUAL things, or like just about EVERY thing else you write it is based on COULD BE things only?

As I say frequently, If you LOOK AT what IS, instead of what COULD BE, then you will SEE the ACTUAL Truth of things, almost instantly.

Do you have any actual thing to counter what I say? Or, would you prefer to just keep LOOKING AT 'me' instead?
That you could be the same as the mentally ill person claiming to have had experiences with God could be justified with you consulting a psychiatrist.

Other than that, it is your autism again playing with the words 'LOOK AT' and 'WHAT IS".
It is not for me to look and what is.
It is for you to justified what you are seeing as real.
So far you have not provided any proofs to justify what is that you are looking at.

In another perspective you emphasized "IS".
The small letter "is' is merely a copula that connect an subject with a predicate as an object.
Whatever that object is, one need to provide proofs it exists as real.
E.g. This is an apple can be justified with the empirical evidence the qualities of an apple. This 'is an apple' is conditioned by humans and do not stand by itself.

As for a big cap "IS' I presume you meant a thing-in-itself that is absolute independent of the human self. Tell me if this is wrong.
If that is the case, "IS" is an illusion.

Btw, is your "IS" real?
If real, is your "IS" empirical, epistemological, metaphysical, mathematical, logical or whatever the basis you claim it is real?
When you mentioned 'LOOK' that appear to be perceivable thus would imply empirical.
If your "IS" is empirical where is the empirical evidence to justify the existence of your "IS."

You have shown and justify nothing that God is a possibility to be real.

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:10 am
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:13 am

A schizo can make the same claim as you are doing above. Fact is many of the mentally ill has done so. One example among the many [thousands];

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

So this is what your "argument" comes down to.

If you say some thing opposing what you, yourself, claim, then a "schizo" can make the same claim.

But, would I be right in saying that you also believe, that any one agreeing with what you claim, then a "true intellectual" could make the same claim?

The absurdity of saying; "A schizo can make the same claim", and actually thinking that it has any weight or bearing at all is just about insanity itself.

To ensure the credibility of your statement, where is your proof Absolute perfection ALREADY EXISTS?
WHERE I have been TELLING YOU it is.

Have you really still NOT yet heard this?

Absolute PERFECTION is in FRONT OF YOU.

I would normally just say LOOK AT what IS, but your words prove that you are just too BLIND to SEE It anyway.
This is what schizo tell a normal guy he is too blind to see his schizo's friend seating next to him and talking to him.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:13 am
You could be the same as this fellow below;

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
who claimed he knew God.
I could be. I could also be the same as a "fellow" that is completely brain dead, or I could also be the same some other fellow. In fact I could be the same as many things. But what I COULD BE has NO actual bearing on WHAT I actually AM, which, by the way, ALL OF THIS has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here.

There is a name for LOOKING AT what one is (or could be) and their personality, instead of focusing on the actual argument, itself, correct?

Now where were we, ah that is right, you were saying that you have already proven "God is an impossibility to be real" and that it is even a "none starter". YET, here I am having just proven that 'God is a possibility to be real'. So, where does this leave us now EXACTLY?

Do you have any thing other than; "some fellow COULD claim some thing" OR "you COULD BE the same as this fellow"?

Do you have any ACTUAL things, or like just about EVERY thing else you write it is based on COULD BE things only?

As I say frequently, If you LOOK AT what IS, instead of what COULD BE, then you will SEE the ACTUAL Truth of things, almost instantly.

Do you have any actual thing to counter what I say? Or, would you prefer to just keep LOOKING AT 'me' instead?
That you could be the same as the mentally ill person claiming to have had experiences with God could be justified with you consulting a psychiatrist.

Other than that, it is your autism again playing with the words 'LOOK AT' and 'WHAT IS".
It is not for me to look and what is.
It is for you to justified what you are seeing as real.
So far you have not provided any proofs to justify what is that you are looking at.

In another perspective you emphasized "IS".
The small letter "is' is merely a copula that connect an subject with a predicate as an object.
Whatever that object is, one need to provide proofs it exists as real.
E.g. This is an apple can be justified with the empirical evidence the qualities of an apple. This 'is an apple' is conditioned by humans and do not stand by itself.

As for a big cap "IS' I presume you meant a thing-in-itself that is absolute independent of the human self. Tell me if this is wrong.
What you presumed IS completely and utterly WRONG.

I have already suggested WHY it is better to NEVER assume any thing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:10 am
If that is the case, "IS" is an illusion.
It is NOT the case, so this is completely and utterly moot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:10 am
You have shown and justify nothing that God is a possibility to be real.
Obviously. I said previously that you are completely incapable of SEEING some things.

As I said previously, which you may have MISSED; You were saying that you have already proven "God is an impossibility to be real" and that it is even a "non starter". YET, here I am having just proven that 'God is a possibility to be real'. So, where does this leave us now EXACTLY?

How many times have I told you that you have shown and justify nothing, OTHER THAN TO YOUR OWN SELF, that "God is an impossibility to be real"?

In other words, the ONLY ONE that you have proven God is an impossibility to be real" is your own self. Even though you continually write that you have proven this, thee Truth IS you have ONLY proven it to 'you'.

When are you going to SEE and UNDERSTAND this FACT?

This means that you have NOT proven, in the True sense, that 'God is a possibility to be real is a non starter'. You have only proven this, in the relative sense, to you, ONLY.

This is WHAT I have been wanting to SHOW here

What I have also been SHOWING here is how you LOOK AT and CRITICIZE the personality of the ones that you are arguing against far more than you do actually LOOK AT and COUNTER the actual words being said.

Even though I made this clear in my last post to you, you still went ahead and remarked here about me in relation to being "autistic", a "schizo", as well as a "mentally ill person", suggesting that I need to see a psychiatrist, and all because I view things differently than you do.

Some readers will be NOTICING who it is who is having the 'psychotic' or 'schizophrenic' issues here as well as who is showing signs of 'mental illness' here. But that is certainly up to them to decide this, and NOT me.

Now, IF you want to get back on track and stay on there, WHAT evidence do you have that proves that 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

I have ALREADY EXPOSED and SHOWN the evidence that I HAVE, which you once again completely MISSED.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7080
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:29 pm

The word Impossibility implies two meanings.
Meaning 1 = Meaningless Impossibility.
Meaning 2 = Meaningful Possibility.

Notice: Both 1 & 2 have to be simultaneously present to the knower at the exact same instant else niether would make any sense.

The word Impossibility has meaningless content/context. The word Possibility has meaningful content/context.

Therefore, possibility cannot be known to be meaningful without relating meaningful to it's opposing opposite meaningless.

Therefore, the word Impossibility is a null and void word simply because it's opposite possibility dictates otherwise, and so from that understanding it can been seen that the word possibility or possible can never NOT be anything other than possible. You simply cannot have an Impossible possible. Or an Impossiblity possibilty - that just does not make any rational sense to the mind of knowledge.

And that's why the word Impossible is a such a stupid word when applying it to basic knowledge. For example: it is KNOWN in the experience one with the knowing that a square peg will not fit in a round hole. One doesn't have to say it's impossible that a square peg will not fit in a round hole. Any thing is possible except an Impossible possible which is totally meaningless. The possible cannot be Impossible, it simply doesn't work like that. Possibility CANNOT not be possible...as in Impossible, it's simply a misnomer WORD, but important nonetheless in how we come to know anything at all, we know as and through the DUAL nature of LANGUAGE.


Therefore, the concept God is possible as is every other concept that can be known via knowledge.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7080
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
At the ultimate level, God is merely an idea, not a concept nor empirical thing to be perceived.
What is an empirical ''thing'' ?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5038
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:29 am
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?
You have no proof for perfection as a 100 percent score is subject to a context, change the context and the score changes. Context is absolute, the variety of contexts is relative.

There is no empirical evidence of your perfection without changing definitions.
That is my point regarding relative perfections. In a subjective situation, if one changes the context the score will change.
However in an objective tests, the right answers are already predetermined by humans, thus 100/100 relative perfect score is a possibility but this is not an absolute perfection.
God is purely assumed and God as assuming (all in all) is reflected within the faculties of existence as contexts assuming contexts. This occurs at the psychological scale as well as the empirical (one form of matter is imprinted by and imprints another form, ie sand imprints rock and rock imprints sand).

The definition of God requires "infinity", thus can neither be proven or disproven. As infinity is a sub element of God you are left by default with infinite defintions and fall in a slippery slope in trying to either prove or disprove God.

If God is both being ane beyond being, and proof is an element of "being" (considering proof exists), then God is proof and beyond proof. As proof God as order is reflected where proof is strictly a defined framework of how some facet of creation "works".
I am not proving God do not exists.
I am proving the idea of God existing as real is a non-starter.
Again you are not in tune with the OP.

The idea of God is defined dynamically as the definitions are always expanding and changing...you fail to take this in account.

The idea of God is assumed, and as an idea that is dynamically changing it assumes further definitions.

God (as a dynamic idea) fundamentally is empty of definition as assuming continual definition.

God as an idea is God as a context and we are left with the ideas as a context. You cannot avoid this simple fact....the principle of Identity "God is God" with this identity continually assuming newer and newer defintions considering the idea is a context, leaves God as Fundamentally a contextual loop. God is a variable and variables are everpresent in all ideas...so yes God as an idea is omnipotent as it lacks definition.


I have stated the applicable definition of God used in the above is the ontological God where infinity is not applicable.

Red herring, ontology is undefined and assumed...which ontology.

Second you are ignoring the other definitions of God outside of ontology, thus leaving them as applicable.

Third negate infinity. If you say infinity does not exist, you are applying an existing term which must be negated. Why does infinity not exist?


As usual I am talking apples and you deflect and muddle the point with 'oranges'.
You are not addressing P1 nor P2 directly.

Actually you are deflecting the conversation entirely by using false premises...your question is neither right nor wrong as ontology is subject to various schools, as well as God not being limited to any ontololgy, and you fail to address God's other definitions:

Ie:

All in All (recursion)
Beginning and End (inversive)
Etc.

And finally having a completely agreed upon argument is impossible, thus to argue God is impossible through argument ends up in alternating extremes. This is a historical and empirical fact.

You means are false, thus your conclusion is impossible.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:58 am

Age wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:10 am
That you could be the same as the mentally ill person claiming to have had experiences with God could be justified with you consulting a psychiatrist.

Other than that, it is your autism again playing with the words 'LOOK AT' and 'WHAT IS".
It is not for me to look and what is.
It is for you to justified what you are seeing as real.
So far you have not provided any proofs to justify what is that you are looking at.

In another perspective you emphasized "IS".
The small letter "is' is merely a copula that connect an subject with a predicate as an object.
Whatever that object is, one need to provide proofs it exists as real.
E.g. This is an apple can be justified with the empirical evidence the qualities of an apple. This 'is an apple' is conditioned by humans and do not stand by itself.

As for a big cap "IS' I presume you meant a thing-in-itself that is absolute independent of the human self. Tell me if this is wrong.
What you presumed IS completely and utterly WRONG.

I have already suggested WHY it is better to NEVER assume any thing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:10 am
If that is the case, "IS" is an illusion.
It is NOT the case, so this is completely and utterly moot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:10 am
You have shown and justify nothing that God is a possibility to be real.
Obviously. I said previously that you are completely incapable of SEEING some things.

As I said previously, which you may have MISSED; You were saying that you have already proven "God is an impossibility to be real" and that it is even a "non starter". YET, here I am having just proven that 'God is a possibility to be real'. So, where does this leave us now EXACTLY?

How many times have I told you that you have shown and justify nothing, OTHER THAN TO YOUR OWN SELF, that "God is an impossibility to be real"?

In other words, the ONLY ONE that you have proven God is an impossibility to be real" is your own self. Even though you continually write that you have proven this, thee Truth IS you have ONLY proven it to 'you'.

When are you going to SEE and UNDERSTAND this FACT?

This means that you have NOT proven, in the True sense, that 'God is a possibility to be real is a non starter'. You have only proven this, in the relative sense, to you, ONLY.

This is WHAT I have been wanting to SHOW here

What I have also been SHOWING here is how you LOOK AT and CRITICIZE the personality of the ones that you are arguing against far more than you do actually LOOK AT and COUNTER the actual words being said.

Even though I made this clear in my last post to you, you still went ahead and remarked here about me in relation to being "autistic", a "schizo", as well as a "mentally ill person", suggesting that I need to see a psychiatrist, and all because I view things differently than you do.

Some readers will be NOTICING who it is who is having the 'psychotic' or 'schizophrenic' issues here as well as who is showing signs of 'mental illness' here. But that is certainly up to them to decide this, and NOT me.

Now, IF you want to get back on track and stay on there, WHAT evidence do you have that proves that 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

I have ALREADY EXPOSED and SHOWN the evidence that I HAVE, which you once again completely MISSED.
It is not from my crude counters or wild imaginations.
I am comparing you to the mentally ill because what you are proposing is also experienced by the mentally ill.
I gave supporting evidence like this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
I have done extensive research in this area and there are tons of evidence I could produce if we are to dig further.

What you are doing is forcing what you personally experienced onto to others and worst without any justifications. All you have is what is in your head. You are so foolishly arrogant because you insist others will not know your personal experiences. This is what the mentally ills often do. But you and those mentally ills are not aware this delusion is well researched.

What I have done is not my personal experience but an argument that is sound as abstracted and reasoned from real experiences [P1]. This open to all to counter.
All you need to do is to counter my argument with objective reasoning.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 05, 2019 3:07 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
At the ultimate level, God is merely an idea, not a concept nor empirical thing to be perceived.
What is an empirical ''thing'' ?
Now you are asking.
You should have asked before wasting your time on 'possibility' in the above post.

Here is the basic meaning which is sufficient for the present;
  • Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
    -google dictionary
Verifiable by observation or experience mean Science not merely personal experiences and personal inferences.

Now show me how is perfection [absolute] a possibility within the empirical world + understanding + rationality?
You cannot, thus God is an impossibility based on the OP's argument.

p.s. suggest you explore the term 'absolute' and 'perfect' thoroughly in the philosophical perspective before you response.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 05, 2019 3:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 am
I am not proving God do not exists.
I am proving the idea of God existing as real is a non-starter.
Again you are not in tune with the OP.

The idea of God is defined dynamically as the definitions are always expanding and changing...you fail to take this in account.

The idea of God is assumed, and as an idea that is dynamically changing it assumes further definitions.

God (as a dynamic idea) fundamentally is empty of definition as assuming continual definition.

God as an idea is God as a context and we are left with the ideas as a context. You cannot avoid this simple fact....the principle of Identity "God is God" with this identity continually assuming newer and newer definitions considering the idea is a context, leaves God as Fundamentally a contextual loop. God is a variable and variables are everpresent in all ideas...so yes God as an idea is omnipotent as it lacks definition.



I have stated the applicable definition of God used in the above is the ontological God where infinity is not applicable.

Red herring, ontology is undefined and assumed...which ontology.

Second you are ignoring the other definitions of God outside of ontology, thus leaving them as applicable.

Third negate infinity. If you say infinity does not exist, you are applying an existing term which must be negated. Why does infinity not exist?
You are very ignorant on this;

Show we where can you generate a definition that is better than the ontological definition of God, i.e.
  • God is a Being than which no greater can be thought and conceived of.
The above is from St. Anselm and others. Descartes' ontological God is defined with the attribute of 'perfection.'
As usual I am talking apples and you deflect and muddle the point with 'oranges'.
You are not addressing P1 nor P2 directly.

Actually you are deflecting the conversation entirely by using false premises...your question is neither right nor wrong as ontology is subject to various schools, as well as God not being limited to any ontololgy, and you fail to address God's other definitions:

Ie:

All in All (recursion)
Beginning and End (inversive)
Etc.

And finally having a completely agreed upon argument is impossible, thus to argue God is impossible through argument ends up in alternating extremes. This is a historical and empirical fact.

You means are false, thus your conclusion is impossible.
See my point above re the definition of the ontological God.

Most theists refer the ontological God as "a maximally great being" i.e. to the utmost maximum one can attribute to God.

Any other definition will automatically imply an inferior God.
Whilst in Hinduism the various religions has millions of God, there is an ultimate God than which no other is greater, i.e. that is Brahman.
Lesser gods without an ontological God as backing normally will be obsolete in practical beliefs like the Greek gods.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests