God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 26, 2019 4:02 am

Justintruth wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:39 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?
The problem is you have to prove that something that is impossible to be empirical is impossible to be real else you have:

So,
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be empirical
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be empirical.
As you have written it it's wrong. As I have written it I think it is correct.
It is the same with my original.

As I had mentioned 'what is real' is within the general paradigm of 'what is real', i.e. that it is able to be justified empirically [Science] and philosophical [critical thinking and wisdom]. Thus I included 'real' in the premise but explained its basis in the details to support the syllogism/model.

Science is the the most objective knowledge of reality [say 90% confidence level] and the rest of 9.99% will be covered by critical thinking and wisdom [the essence of philosophy].

nothing
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by nothing » Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:44 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?
There is another approach to undermine any/all belief-based gods: that in any conceivable rivalry context of-and-bewteen so-called good and evil, god must have a counter-part (ie. satan). Because the relationship between them is antithetical (ie. opposites of one another) if either has a definite fixed property/characteristic, it can be used to infer the (inverse of the) same property/characteristic of the other. For example:

What (p) is to satan,
then (-p) is to god.

Therefor, if one can find any fixed for satan, its inverse reveals for god. What does it takes for any believer to believe satan is god?
viz. the (right) answer is in the (right) question.

What BELIEF is to satan,
then -BELIEF is to god.

What is the inverse of belief? How does one negate belief, thus erode potency from satan? How does one know what not to believe?
viz. the (right) answer is in the (right) question.

What BELIEF is to satan,
then KNOW is to god.

Try: would any all-knowing god know any/all *not* to believe?
Test: by definition, yes
Falsify: how can both satan and god rely on belief if they are antithetical?

The point is: if satan requires belief, and god is the opposite of satan, how can god also require belief? It's a/the contradiction that begs a trial of belief-in-and-of-itself as being a fixed characteristic of any/all deception as it ever could/would relate to satan (so-called) and/or the confusion of good and evil (so-called) without even the need to define them. It takes a believer to believe evil is good, just as it does to believe war is peace, infidelity is fidelity etc. thus in what practical universe would god demand the same thing satan relies on? It's thus absolutely ignorant to "believe" in an all-knowing god such as the monotheistic monstrosity of Abrahamism.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:35 am

nothing wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:44 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?
There is another approach to undermine any/all belief-based gods: that in any conceivable rivalry context of-and-bewteen so-called good and evil, god must have a counter-part (ie. satan). Because the relationship between them is antithetical (ie. opposites of one another) if either has a definite fixed property/characteristic, it can be used to infer the (inverse of the) same property/characteristic of the other. For example:

What (p) is to satan,
then (-p) is to god.

Therefor, if one can find any fixed for satan, its inverse reveals for god. What does it takes for any believer to believe satan is god?
viz. the (right) answer is in the (right) question.

What BELIEF is to satan,
then -BELIEF is to god.

What is the inverse of belief? How does one negate belief, thus erode potency from satan? How does one know what not to believe?
viz. the (right) answer is in the (right) question.

What BELIEF is to satan,
then KNOW is to god.

Try: would any all-knowing god know any/all *not* to believe?
Test: by definition, yes
Falsify: how can both satan and god rely on belief if they are antithetical?

The point is: if satan requires belief, and god is the opposite of satan, how can god also require belief? It's a/the contradiction that begs a trial of belief-in-and-of-itself as being a fixed characteristic of any/all deception as it ever could/would relate to satan (so-called) and/or the confusion of good and evil (so-called) without even the need to define them. It takes a believer to believe evil is good, just as it does to believe war is peace, infidelity is fidelity etc. thus in what practical universe would god demand the same thing satan relies on? It's thus absolutely ignorant to "believe" in an all-knowing god such as the monotheistic monstrosity of Abrahamism.
Good effort but it will not work for the ontological God.

The OP above is targeted on the Ontological God.
The ontological God is defined as,
"-a God than which no greater can exist or be conceived"

As defined above, there is nothing, including Satan can be greater than the Ontological God.
As such theists can believe in the ontological God, but only as a thought, not as an entity in any real sense.
To reify such a thought of the ontological God as real would end up with a transcendental illusion.

Btw, suggest you raise your post as an OP as it may trigger some theists to think about their God and Satan.

Age
Posts: 3578
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age » Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:35 am
nothing wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:44 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?
There is another approach to undermine any/all belief-based gods: that in any conceivable rivalry context of-and-bewteen so-called good and evil, god must have a counter-part (ie. satan). Because the relationship between them is antithetical (ie. opposites of one another) if either has a definite fixed property/characteristic, it can be used to infer the (inverse of the) same property/characteristic of the other. For example:

What (p) is to satan,
then (-p) is to god.

Therefor, if one can find any fixed for satan, its inverse reveals for god. What does it takes for any believer to believe satan is god?
viz. the (right) answer is in the (right) question.

What BELIEF is to satan,
then -BELIEF is to god.

What is the inverse of belief? How does one negate belief, thus erode potency from satan? How does one know what not to believe?
viz. the (right) answer is in the (right) question.

What BELIEF is to satan,
then KNOW is to god.

Try: would any all-knowing god know any/all *not* to believe?
Test: by definition, yes
Falsify: how can both satan and god rely on belief if they are antithetical?

The point is: if satan requires belief, and god is the opposite of satan, how can god also require belief? It's a/the contradiction that begs a trial of belief-in-and-of-itself as being a fixed characteristic of any/all deception as it ever could/would relate to satan (so-called) and/or the confusion of good and evil (so-called) without even the need to define them. It takes a believer to believe evil is good, just as it does to believe war is peace, infidelity is fidelity etc. thus in what practical universe would god demand the same thing satan relies on? It's thus absolutely ignorant to "believe" in an all-knowing god such as the monotheistic monstrosity of Abrahamism.
Good effort but it will not work for the ontological God.

The OP above is targeted on the Ontological God.
The ontological God is defined as,
"-a God than which no greater can exist or be conceived"
But as I have already stated; This God ALREADY EXISTS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:35 am
As defined above, there is nothing, including Satan can be greater than the Ontological God.
As such theists can believe in the ontological God, but only as a thought, not as an entity in any real sense.
To reify such a thought of the ontological God as real would end up with a transcendental illusion.

Btw, suggest you raise your post as an OP as it may trigger some theists to think about their God and Satan.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:01 am

A purposeful creator of the universe, or of planet earth and all it's life, are not impossibilities. Just seemingly improbable.

We exist, we create, we play with DNA, of course on a much smaller scale. What shall we be able to do in the future. If we can possibly outlive ourselves that is? Could we be the creators of a species? In essence, their god?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:58 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:01 am
A purposeful creator of the universe, or of planet earth and all it's life, are not impossibilities. Just seemingly improbable.

We exist, we create, we play with DNA, of course on a much smaller scale. What shall we be able to do in the future. If we can possibly outlive ourselves that is? Could we be the creators of a species? In essence, their god?
The OP refer to the theists' definition of the default ultimate God, i.e. the ontological God which is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.

If one claimed one's god is empirically-based [not ontological] then such a creator-god is empirically-possible.
Thus if a theist claim his god is a human-liked alien creating the known-universe from a planet one million light years away, then such a god is empirically possible, but seemingly improbable. It is empirical possible because all the variables in the claim are empirically-based.
Therefore if the claimant can bring the empirical evidence for empirical justification and if empirically validated, then such a creator-exists empirically which no one can deny empirically.

But the problem with theism is no theists will accept an empirical god because whatever is empirical is limited and conditional upon empiricism.
The theists' god has to be absolutely unconditional, thus that has to be an ontological God.

But what is ontological cannot be empirically and philosophically real.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:58 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:01 am
A purposeful creator of the universe, or of planet earth and all it's life, are not impossibilities. Just seemingly improbable.

We exist, we create, we play with DNA, of course on a much smaller scale. What shall we be able to do in the future. If we can possibly outlive ourselves that is? Could we be the creators of a species? In essence, their god?
The OP refer to the theists' definition of the default ultimate God, i.e. the ontological God which is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
To what default ultimate god definition, that you ascribe as that which all religions claim to be the case, are you referring?
Once you quote it, I'll be sure to wait until all religions respond, before I make my next argument.

There are those that honestly believe they may speak for everyone without consulting them.


If one claimed one's god is empirically-based [not ontological] then such a creator-god is empirically-possible.
Thus if a theist claim his god is a human-liked alien creating the known-universe from a planet one million light years away, then such a god is empirically possible, but seemingly improbable. It is empirical possible because all the variables in the claim are empirically-based.
Therefore if the claimant can bring the empirical evidence for empirical justification and if empirically validated, then such a creator-exists empirically which no one can deny empirically.

But the problem with theism is no theists will accept an empirical god because whatever is empirical is limited and conditional upon empiricism.
The theists' god has to be absolutely unconditional, thus that has to be an ontological God.

But what is ontological cannot be empirically and philosophically real.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:11 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:58 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:01 am
A purposeful creator of the universe, or of planet earth and all it's life, are not impossibilities. Just seemingly improbable.

We exist, we create, we play with DNA, of course on a much smaller scale. What shall we be able to do in the future. If we can possibly outlive ourselves that is? Could we be the creators of a species? In essence, their god?
The OP refer to the theists' definition of the default ultimate God, i.e. the ontological God which is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.

To what default ultimate god definition, that you ascribe as that which all religions claim to be the case, are you referring?
Once you quote it, I'll be sure to wait until all religions respond, before I make my next argument.

There are those that honestly believe they may speak for everyone without consulting them.


If one claimed one's god is empirically-based [not ontological] then such a creator-god is empirically-possible.
Thus if a theist claim his god is a human-liked alien creating the known-universe from a planet one million light years away, then such a god is empirically possible, but seemingly improbable. It is empirical possible because all the variables in the claim are empirically-based.
Therefore if the claimant can bring the empirical evidence for empirical justification and if empirically validated, then such a creator-exists empirically which no one can deny empirically.

But the problem with theism is no theists will accept an empirical god because whatever is empirical is limited and conditional upon empiricism.
The theists' god has to be absolutely unconditional, thus that has to be an ontological God.

But what is ontological cannot be empirically and philosophically real.
Have you ever researched on the evolution of concept-idea of what is God from since human first got the concept-idea to the most refined definitions of God by expert theologians?
I have done so extensively.
Generally, the definition of God has evolved against opposing views [from atheists and own reasoning], i.e. from animism, anthropomorphism, polytheism, to monotheism, to the ultimate ontological God.

Have a look of this article for a start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I don't think you have otherwise you would have not replied with doubts on my above proposition.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests