God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6899
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:13 am

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.
Please don't go confusing the reader with words like 'concept' 'perception', 'ideas', 'thought', to mean differents things, when in truth they are just different words for the same idea that is actually being pointed to here. Separating words that basically mean the same thing, to mean different things is confusing for the reader and unnecessary, it's really not very helpful...at best it bamboozles the seeking philosopher, cutting it off further and further from ever understanding what is being pointed to which is their SOURCE ..please keep it simple that a child could understand.


The idea (God)would not have arisen if there had been no pre-conceived idea of God in the first place. You have to pre-conceive an idea before it can manifest. That you are able to pre-conceive means that the idea has always existed, the idea is a discovery that's already in you, it's not out there outisde of you...outside of you are your inner projections aka creations...but you are not created, you are the uncreated creator.

Things, aka ilusions, are just images of yourself. The mirror of consciousness / awareness or what ever you want to call source doesn't question itself, it just is, but when it does seemingly question itself it will reflect the answer in the question. Where else could an answer come from but from the question?

I never once said or implied God was a thing, I think you are confused as to what is being pointed to here.
To deny an idea is to in the same moment create one, but a creation is a perception only, not a thing. You can uncreate a thing as you can create a thing... but you cannot uncreate the perceiver aka the source of that thing...aka an idea.

Perceptions are not things. Things are perceptions. That which is perceiving aka consciousness awareness.. is not a thing. This ''not a thing'' is perceived to perceive - it's energetically programmed to behave like that, it's also energetically programmed to believe in the perceived as it is perceiving it into existence, and belief in the perceived births it into existence...so all things are beliefs only.. so to speak. And this is called the MIND, aka duality, the world of opposites. The world of make-believe come true.

You simply cannot perceive the idea (god) and then deny the idea ever existing, it simply exists as a concept.
An idea once born sticks, the mind is nothing without it... but ultimately, the mind that sticks can unstick itself, the idea can be removed consciously just as easy as it is placed in the first place.

Consciousness being the place holder of all ideas. Consciousness cannot turn a perception into an object, there is no object separate from the perceiver. This is known as God...but God is not a thing, lets be clear about that, try not to twist others peoples capacity to crtically think about the true and real nature of being conscious.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
At the ultimate level, God as an idea is merely idealized not conceptualized nor perceived.
Nonsense. You are the one trying to turn an idea into an objectifable thing in and of itself, not me.
What the heck is an idea anyway, unless it is perceived as a conceptualised knowledge known with meaning.
Note that any known knowledge is informing the nature of a concept to be illusory, in that it is not a thing in and of itself separate from it's conceiver ... while the perceiver of such knowledge is not illusory..as they are one and the same no thing...that has to be, if conception is ever to be known.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
God as an ideal is an illusion, i.e. an impossibility to be real.
God as an illusion is something like [not exactly] an idea [thought only] of a squareny -circle which based on reasoning and it is an impossibility.
A square circle is knowledge known, there is no such thing as a concept known separate from the knower. The knower is not what it knows, it is what it doesn't know. It knows what it is because it knows what it's not. And that cannot be negated or refuted. You cannot negate your being and know it. All you know is being. And that's all that's ever known one with the knowing, you are that knowing, that can never not be here. You are never not here. This is God or what ever you want to call it, it goes by any other name as knowledge known.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Would you insist a square-circle exists to be conceived, perceived or there is evidence that it exists?
Ideas exist in the perceivers mind only, they are not things in and of themselves. For a thing to be known, the opposite has to be also, the unknown. You are the unknown known. Aka the mind...you are even beyond the mind of duality...you are that in which the mind appears, you are the absolute right here and now always and forever...you have never not been here, you are never not here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Similarly the idea [not concept] on God is an illusion and impossibility and thus there is no question of it existing as real other than existing as an illusion.
But this is knowledge KNOWN, knowledge informs the illusory nature of things, objects to exist separate from the knower. That which knows all things and objects is not the object or thing as they are conceived. However, there is the perception of things and objects, and that perceiver cannot be negated ..for who would negate this ONE? ..and that knowledge is wisdom, it is hidden in plain sight. This is God...or what ever you want to call it, it goes by any other name while remaining forever nameless... you cannot hold your 'named being' in your hand, because it does not exist outside of you, it's an idea in you...just as you cannot hold awareness or the light in your hand, it is already you, the mind wants to hold the idea of itself in it's hand, it looks outside itself for itself, it knocks on the door of perception and says let me in, never quite realising that when the door of perception opens up responding to it's own knocking, it sees that it wasn't on the outside knocking to come in, it was already in itself all along..

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:19 am
It's one thing to say that the Supreme Being can act into the material realm when He so chooses.
It's quite a different thing to say that God is a member of the subset of things within the material realm.
And I have known no Theists (and believe me, I know a lot) who believe the second view.
The majority of theists do not deliberate consciously on whether God is empirical or transcendental.

That might be true, when one considers ALL Theists in the world. It certainly isn't true in Western theology. But I see you have no familiarity with that, so I may not be able to convince you.
Western theology used to believe God is that bearded man in the sky.
But since the advances of Science asking for justified evidence, Western theists has shifted their arguments to God being beyond the physical i.e. as an spiritual essence which still imply it is empirical.
Note quarks are empirical which cannot be seen by the senses but can be implied from its effects, i.e. experiences.
It is the same for God which is deemed to be empirical by many, i.e. can be inferred from God's effects.
As I had argued there limitations to this argument based on empiricism.

Then the theists arguments shifted to what you are claiming, i.e. a transcendental God which is beyond the empirical but still have can generate empirical effects.
This is problematic in how to prove the mechanics of how the transcendental can link to the empirical.
But in this case, you have shifted the existence of God to basically a transcendental God.
As I had insisted a transcendental God is a resulting illusion from a psychological cause.

So either an empirical God, a transcendental God which generate the empirical or a purely transcendent God, they are all impossible to exists as real in anyway.
The only reason why the idea of God emerged into human consciousness is a psychological cause.

Well, really, this has always been a very, very weak argument. The "psychological crutch" insult works every bit as well as a counter to Atheism as it does a rebuke to Theism, actually. One can have a "wish fulfillment" (Freud) desire for God to exist, sure; but one can also have a "wish fulfillment" desire to imagine there's no God, when actually, there is. The first option may provide a sense of consolation, but the second promises a sense of freedom from judgment. An human being actually can have deep psychological longings to believe either way. Even Freud himself, who really invented the argument, said this was true. He thought Atheism was an expression of the Oedipal desire to "kill the father." But if it is, it's potentially just as much a "psychological crutch" as any other wish-fulfillment desire.
As explained and my attention on the "psychological crutch" in relation to neuro-psychology and neuro-psychiatry, the above is not applicable.
The "crutch" word certainly pegs your view as Freudian. You may not know it, but it is. If you were not intending to denigrate Theism and represent it as a sort of emotional dependency, you would certainly have used a better word to describe it. For example, you could have said "phenomenon," not "crutch." But if you misspoke, I'll let you walk that back.
It is most likely your confirmation bias that you believe 'crutch' pegs as Freudian.
It is not my intention to denigrate Theism but it is for philosophy sake that I discuss what I believe is the truth as justified.

So you don't believe in the "psychological crutch" argument. Good. It's terrible logic.
Not Freud's though I believe he had some points there.

DNA wise all humans are subjected to a very serious inherent existential crisis and the majority relied on theism as a 'crutch' to stabilize the psyche. Non-theists relied on non-theistic means which had good and evil outcomes.

Why I say it is a 'crutch' is because the primal forces that compel [subliminally] theists to theism is almost like the need to breathe.
When most theists sensed their 'crutch' is being tugged, they are very sensitive to their psychological security and will not hesitate to the extreme in killing non-believers [in the case of Islam] or kill their own son to reinforce that security, note Abraham.

The above psychological issue is not a fanciful idea but it has been deliberated since more than 2500 years ago or later within Eastern religions and philosophies.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:52 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
God as an ideal is an illusion, i.e. an impossibility to be real.
God as an illusion is something like [not exactly] an idea [thought only] of a squareny -circle which based on reasoning and it is an impossibility.
A square circle is knowledge known, there is no such thing as a concept known separate from the knower.
The knower is not what it knows, it is what it doesn't know. It knows what it is because it knows what it's not. And that cannot be negated or refuted.
You cannot negate your being and know it.
All you know is being.
And that's all that's ever known one with the knowing, you are that knowing, that can never not be here.
You are never not here.
This is God or what ever you want to call it, it goes by any other name as knowledge known.
I presume you are referring to the 'I AM" or 'Sum' of Cogito, ergo sum?
The Hindus believed the 'I AM' i.e. Atman is part and parcel of God [Brahman] thus is also God.
I presume that is how you relate "you" to 'God' or whatever one want to call it?
Schopenhauer also reconcile one's fundamental 'Will' to the overall 'WILL'.
Elsewhere, the Abrahamic for example believe the "I AM" is the permanent soul that survives physical death and will meet God in heaven.

But note there are counter arguments that the "I AM" is merely a transcendental self while the "I Think" is the empirical self.
It is argued, the transcendental self as a self-in-itself is an illusion, e.g. Hume, Kant and others.
Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory
According to David Hume, the idea of an enduring self is an illusion.
https://bewarephilosophy.weebly.com/bundle-theory.html

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Would you insist a square-circle exists to be conceived, perceived or there is evidence that it exists?
Ideas exist in the perceivers mind only, they are not things in and of themselves. For a thing to be known, the opposite has to be also, the unknown. You are the unknown known. Aka the mind...you are even beyond the mind of duality...you are that in which the mind appears, you are the absolute right here and now always and forever...you have never not been here, you are never not here.
I agree Ideas [so with concepts and perception] exist in the perceivers mind only.
But there are no thing-in-itself.
To reify a thing-in-itself existing as real is illusory.

As I had explained the 'you' which is always and forever is an illusion. note Hume.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Similarly the idea [not concept] on God is an illusion and impossibility and thus there is no question of it existing as real other than existing as an illusion.
But this is knowledge KNOWN, knowledge informs the illusory nature of things, objects to exist separate from the knower.
That which knows all things and objects is not the object or thing as they are conceived.
However, there is the perception of things and objects, and that perceiver cannot be negated ..for who would negate this ONE? ..and that knowledge is wisdom, it is hidden in plain sight.
This is God...or what ever you want to call it, it goes by any other name while remaining forever nameless... you cannot hold your 'named being' in your hand, because it does not exist outside of you, it's an idea in you...just as you cannot hold awareness or the light in your hand, it is already you, the mind wants to hold the idea of itself in it's hand, it looks outside itself for itself, it knocks on the door of perception and says let me in, never quite realising that when the door of perception opens up responding to it's own knocking, it sees that it wasn't on the outside knocking to come in, it was already in itself all along..
Point is, the 'that' which knows as I have shown above is an illusion if reified as something-in-itself.

Btw, can you refer to some source references which I think would be easier to discuss from.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6899
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:52 am


I presume you are referring to the 'I AM" or 'Sum' of Cogito, ergo sum?
No, I am referring to this unavoidable immediate direct experience of being present right here now...of which I cannot deny or negate.
I know it because I am it, but I do not know what, or why, or how it it, only that it is. I know any concept about it will not affect nor change it in anyway shape or form.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:52 am
The Hindus believed the 'I AM' i.e. Atman is part and parcel of God [Brahman] thus is also God.
I presume that is how you relate "you" to 'God' or whatever one want to call it?
Schopenhauer also reconcile one's fundamental 'Will' to the overall 'WILL'.
Elsewhere, the Abrahamic for example believe the "I AM" is the permanent soul that survives physical death and will meet God in heaven.
Note that all these ideas are beliefs, and without the belief there is no movie of I AM...so irrelevant to what's actually being pointed to here, which is this unborn unmoving NOW presence without an object of it's desire...aka the moving I..the movie/dream.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:52 am
But note there are counter arguments that the "I AM" is merely a transcendental self while the "I Think" is the empirical self.
It is argued, the transcendental self as a self-in-itself is an illusion, e.g. Hume, Kant and others.
That maybe so, but still these are just illusory beliefs, snapshots of the mind, the movie of I...moo-vie..(many of one)... and not the actual clarity that is right here now as this unborn presence..
So, that which apparently appears to transcend never ever transcended, it would need to split itself in two to do that, which is impossible, how does presence split itself in two?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:52 am
Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory
Irrelevant story...it's just story told by no one.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:52 am
According to David Hume, the idea of an enduring self is an illusion.
https://bewarephilosophy.weebly.com/bundle-theory.html
More conceptual story.


Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am

I agree Ideas [so with concepts and perception] exist in the perceivers mind only.
But there are no thing-in-itself.
To reify a thing-in-itself existing as real is illusory.

As I had explained the 'you' which is always and forever is an illusion. note Hume.
No it's not. The illusion is the conceived you, in order that a concept is known, it has to be conceived, and that which is being conceived requires a conceiver. The conceiver cannot conceive of itself, it is the conceiving ...this that is conceiving is not an illusion. It is without doubt or error, what it conceives is an illusion because it cannot experience itself as a conceived object.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Point is, the 'that' which knows as I have shown above is an illusion if reified as something-in-itself.
There is no 'that' which knows...there is only knowing.

That which knows is knowledge itself, the KNOWN...known by the only knowing there is which is this direct knowing presence right here and now that cannot be denied or negated. Presence is not an illusion. What presence thinks it is is the illusion not presence itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Btw, can you refer to some source references which I think would be easier to discuss from.
The only realiable source reference worthy of a mention is source itself which is you. Seriously, who else is there to source what only you can know?

You cannot know the reality of another knower....you have no access to anything outside of you, for it's all your own creation as the creator.
And the same applies to other peoples creative minds, this is not saying there is nothing other than your own presence, it's saying presence is everywhere at once, and the presence that is in me..is the same presence that is in you, and is the same presence that is in the dog, and the cat..add infinitum. Naming presence is the illusion, not the presence itself.

Don't forget, we are trying to point to emptiness by filling it up with words. A divine paradox.

.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6325
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:15 am
Western theology used to believe God is that bearded man in the sky.
Reductio ad absurdum: a fallacy, as you will know.

Surely we must not be so historically and aesthetically naive as to suppose that when, say, William Blake depicted a man in the sky that he was actually claiming that God was an old man with a white beard. For just as none of our scientific depictions of, say, the universe or of the atom are to scale or show their subject matter proportionally and accurately, so too when one is trying to depict spiritual realities one is confined by one's own limitations to some kind of anthropomorphism.

But this does not suggest that either scientists or painters are so naive as to take their depictions at face value.
But since the advances of Science asking for justified evidence, Western theists has shifted their arguments to God being beyond the physical i.e. as an spiritual essence which still imply it is empirical.
"Spiritual" is by definition not merely empirical. Transcendence suggests super-natural, more than natural, if you will -- not merely non-natural, or non-material.

You really need to clear up this basic misunderstanding of "empirical."

The basic paradigm of the "empirical" is modelled by science. Science confines itself suppositionally to that which is material, manipulable, measurable and repeatable in experiments. But that does not mean that everything that really exists is material, manipulable, measurable and repeatable in an experiment. It just means that when such are considered, science is poorly positioned to say anything about them.

Science is an artificial method. That's why people lived without knowing about it for a very long time. It was produced by Francis Bacon, in the 17th Century. Before that, there were inventions, traditions of thinking and discoveries, but no systematic way of examining or testing them scientifically. But the fact that the scientific method is a "method" means it's a way of looking things that depends on a priori assumptions that cannot be proved by science itself -- since the validity of the scientific method is the very issue at stake, in that case.

So science arbitrarily rules out certain kinds of objects. It knows nothing about personhood, consciousness, values and, most importantly in our case, morality. For those things are not amenable to manipulation, measurement, repetition and testing. Where those things come into view, science falls silent -- not because science is faulty, but because it's not a method that deals with such things.

To speak of the "empirical", then, is to speak of what is limited, controllable, measurable and so on: that which is within the natural world. And while Theists (and Deists, even more so) tend to believe the actions of God can sometimes be detected in nature, or the evidences of His existence can be detected in His works, none of them thinks that the existence of God is confined within the mere natural world (i.e. He is not "empirical").

So your claim is just not true. Sorry, but it can't be saved. It's just wrong.
Note quarks are empirical which cannot be seen by the senses but can be implied from its effects, i.e. experiences.
It is the same for God
There you go. You're right. It's the actions of God which may be seen as empirical, not God Himself. But note the difference! It's crucial.
which is deemed to be empirical by many, i.e. can be inferred from God's effects.
As I had argued there limitations to this argument based on empiricism.
Ah, I see...fallacy of amphiboly. I've pegged the problem now.

it seems you've mistaken God's actions in the natural realm (empirical) for God Himself. But think again: if you find a drawing on a cave wall, you have not located the Neanderthal who may have made them. You've only located her works, not the Neanderthal herself. If you look at an invention, like the light bulb, you have not located (and limited) Thomas Edison. The agent of the empirical change is bigger and more complex than the realm in which he or she has done his or her empirical works.
Then the theists arguments shifted to what you are claiming, i.e. a transcendental God which is beyond the empirical but still have can generate empirical effects.
That's actually not a "shift." It's where they started.
This is problematic in how to prove the mechanics of how the transcendental can link to the empirical.
It depends on how you are understanding "transcendent." It seems you are thinking it must be strictly carved off from the empirical. But the actual vexed question between Materialists and Dualists is this: is there more than the Material world. And you won't solve that question by fiat, nor by complaining that the transcendent hasn't rendered itself to you for scientific testing; because you're going to keep sensing transcendent things, even if you can't get them under your control.

Consciousness is an example. We have done much to map the brain (empirical) but are getting no traction at all on what the real nature of "consciousness" is. You can't prove I have it, and I can't prove you have it. We can only judge it by effects -- you empirically read this email, and suppose I am a consciousness, not a bot or a delusion. But you don't know. Empirically, you see the evidence of my consciousness; but ultimately, you cannot prove there is a "me" behind it.

In fact, as you mentioned in a previous response, "consciousness" is so mysterious that philosophers refer to it as an "epiphenomenon" or as "emergent"; but this is because they actually have no idea how it can happen at all. The philosophy of mind is in its infancy, in this respect. It's subject remains elusive at the moment.
As I had insisted a transcendental God is a resulting illusion from a psychological cause.
So not a "crutch." Okay.

But it seems that now you're going with the "illusion" argument. But that too needs proof. Your previous syllogism certainly doesn't provide what we need in that respect, because of the amphiboly fallacy in it. So what would you offer that's better?
DNA wise all humans are subjected to a very serious inherent existential crisis and the majority relied on theism as a 'crutch' to stabilize the psyche.
Ah, the "crutch" returns. :D Well, this begs so many questions I won't even start. I'm trying to keep this short. However, you've still arbitrarily pathologized Theism, and yet have given no evidence for why your shorthand "history of belief" here should be believed at all. The crutch story is, at best, mildly plausible to the dismissive mind; but other explanations are surely much more plausible.

One might like to think all religion is no more than a crutch. But that's conveniently self-praising and dismissive of the other side, while not noting that the same argument works even better against oneself. It might feel good to be able to dismiss the opposition in such an offhanded way, but really, that's just wish-fulfillment, if Freud's right.

Again you can see that the "crutch" story is a very, very poor argument, a weapon that turns in the hand of the user and cuts her -- if it cuts at all -- worse than her opponents.

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

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Reflex » Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:11 pm

“Spectrum,” “Prismatic” and now “Veritas Aequitas” — different names but the same old nonsense.

Perfection aside, I regard anyone who denies the logical necessity of a First Cause as deranged. Can anyone prove that assessment wrong?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4963
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:29 pm

Standard atheist gibberish...provide an argument and if it cannot be answered it is ignored.

Atheism is a philosophy of continual negation which requires a continual proof of God to negate, hence infinite proofs must continually exist; thereby proving God exists.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4963
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:38 pm

Reflex wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:11 pm
“Spectrum,” “Prismatic” and now “Veritas Aequitas” — different names but the same old nonsense.

Perfection aside, I regard anyone who denies the logical necessity of a First Cause as deranged. Can anyone prove that assessment wrong?
Agreed with the above statement, and to build off of it:

It cannot be proven wrong as a first cause is premised in "The All" as a foundation for all being which extends to and through all being itself. To argument against causality, or the fact structure exists, requires an argument that in itself is causal in the respect it is structured.

Atheism is a contradiction and a savage infection of reason.

seeds
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by seeds » Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:36 am

seeds wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:09 pm
...your problem lies in the false assumption implicit in P2 of your syllogism.

God does not have to meet some ideal form of “perfection.”

He (or she, or it, or whatever term you wish to use) simply needs to be in possession of the attributes necessary for creating a universe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Note as mentioned in the OP, an imperfect God would be a potential loser to a God that is claimed to be perfect.
Note my argument above why a less than perfect God is an inferior God which most theists will not accept because such an inferior God will be ridiculed by theists who believe in a more superior or perfect God.
Note how the Abrahamic believers condemned the pagans and those who pray to a God represented by idols, etc....

...Another point is a less than perfect God will be exposed to the problem of infinite regression.
In the very first line of your OP, you made the following assertion:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.
With that in mind, let’s break down your reply back to me...
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Note as mentioned in the OP, an imperfect God would be a potential loser to a God that is claimed to be perfect.
So what?

And how, exactly, would that be evidence of the impossibility of God being real?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Note my argument above why a less than perfect God is an inferior God which most theists will not accept because such an inferior God will be ridiculed by theists who believe in a more superior or perfect God.
The fact that theists (humans) get caught up in petty arguments regarding the differences in their beliefs, once again elicits the question of how is that evidence of the impossibility of God being real?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Another point is a less than perfect God will be exposed to the problem of infinite regression.
Infinite regression is a problem that confronts any and all concepts concerning the origins of reality.

For example, what was it that caused the initial circumstances of the alleged Big Bang (i.e., where did the infinitesimal kernel of compressed matter come from)?

Which then leads to what caused the cause of the Big Bang, and then what caused the cause of the cause of the BB – ad infinitum.

The bottom line is that absolutely none of your arguments thus far have offered the slightest bit of support to your initial assertion of the impossibility of God being real.
_______

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:53 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Point is, the 'that' which knows as I have shown above is an illusion if reified as something-in-itself.
There is no 'that' which knows...there is only knowing.

That which knows is knowledge itself, the KNOWN...known by the only knowing there is which is this direct knowing presence right here and now that cannot be denied or negated. Presence is not an illusion. What presence thinks it is is the illusion not presence itself.
As you will note you stated,
There is no 'that' which knows...there is only knowing.
then this'
That which knows is knowledge itself, the KNOWN..

In the above you contradicted yourself.
First you stated there is no 'that' and then you said there is a 'that' which knows ... aka knowing ... etc. Note Alfred North Whitehead was into Process Philosophy, maybe that fit with your perspective of the process of 'Knowing'.
The point is it is difficult to get rid of 'that' 'it' or 'what' because as humans we are caught in a 'language game' [Wittgenstein] which need to understood and clarified before we conclude anything using the language game.

Note Heidegger [this is what I by reference] asserted there is no 'what' 'that' or 'it' there is only beings and Being of beings. But ultimately Heidegger got lost.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:31 am
Btw, can you refer to some source references which I think would be easier to discuss from.
The only reliable source reference worthy of a mention is source itself which is you. Seriously, who else is there to source what only you can know?
In your case instead of beating around the bush, let call whatever is to be discussed 'X'.
The best philosophical description with a contentious 'X' is an X-in-itself, i.e. whatever that fits the intention.

The ultimate philosophical point based on the highest level of critical thinking is, whatever is X-in-itself is an illusion [reference Kant's Critique of Pure Reason].

Note Heidegger is claimed to be one of the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.
Kant is one the greatest [if not among] philosopher of ALL times within Western Philosophy.

I understand everyone is entitled to express their views but if one's view is not tested against the greatest philosophers' view, it will lack credibility, unless you can justify it with a peer-reviewed published paper which inevitably need to refer to past philosophers.
You cannot know the reality of another knower....you have no access to anything outside of you, for it's all your own creation as the creator.
And the same applies to other peoples creative minds, this is not saying there is nothing other than your own presence, it's saying presence is everywhere at once, and the presence that is in me..is the same presence that is in you, and is the same presence that is in the dog, and the cat..add infinitum. Naming presence is the illusion, not the presence itself.

Don't forget, we are trying to point to emptiness by filling it up with words. A divine paradox.
Note within Buddhism there is the idea of emptiness or nothingness.
But then there is the emptiness of emptiness.

What you are driven is the impulse of reification of 'being' and the resultant is always an illusion. Reification is a resultant of human psychology.

Btw, why do you think the perspective of the emergence of the idea of God is not feasible at all?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:15 am
Western theology used to believe God is that bearded man in the sky.
Reductio ad absurdum: a fallacy, as you will know.

Surely we must not be so historically and aesthetically naive as to suppose that when, say, William Blake depicted a man in the sky that he was actually claiming that God was an old man with a white beard. For just as none of our scientific depictions of, say, the universe or of the atom are to scale or show their subject matter proportionally and accurately, so too when one is trying to depict spiritual realities one is confined by one's own limitations to some kind of anthropomorphism.

But this does not suggest that either scientists or painters are so naive as to take their depictions at face value.
You have missed my point.

You highlighted and I understand the issue of 'the map is not the territory' 'perception is not the-perceived' and other similar phrases.

Not everyone is that smart and my point is there are still people who take the map as the real thing and are ignorant of the territory. There are people who really react terribly to what they perceived as a "real snake" when that is actually a piece of empirical rope.
So my point is, there are still theists who deem their God as an empirical God.

From your perspective you insists they are wrong, but you cannot deny the fact that there are still people who think their God is an empirical God who will make empirical deliverables.
Many theists believe heaven and hell is as empirical as empirical things on Earth.
Many theists has expressed their dead relatives are looking [empirically] at them from heaven up there.

But since the advances of Science asking for justified evidence, Western theists has shifted their arguments to God being beyond the physical i.e. as an spiritual essence which still imply it is empirical.
"Spiritual" is by definition not merely empirical. Transcendence suggests super-natural, more than natural, if you will -- not merely non-natural, or non-material.
Spiritual is a very loose term.
There is no issue if we define and qualify the context clearly.
You really need to clear up this basic misunderstanding of "empirical."

The basic paradigm of the "empirical" is modelled by science. Science confines itself suppositionally to that which is material, manipulable, measurable and repeatable in experiments. But that does not mean that everything that really exists is material, manipulable, measurable and repeatable in an experiment. It just means that when such are considered, science is poorly positioned to say anything about them.

Science is an artificial method. That's why people lived without knowing about it for a very long time. It was produced by Francis Bacon, in the 17th Century. Before that, there were inventions, traditions of thinking and discoveries, but no systematic way of examining or testing them scientifically. But the fact that the scientific method is a "method" means it's a way of looking things that depends on a priori assumptions that cannot be proved by science itself -- since the validity of the scientific method is the very issue at stake, in that case.

So science arbitrarily rules out certain kinds of objects. It knows nothing about personhood, consciousness, values and, most importantly in our case, morality. For those things are not amenable to manipulation, measurement, repetition and testing. Where those things come into view, science falls silent -- not because science is faulty, but because it's not a method that deals with such things.

To speak of the "empirical", then, is to speak of what is limited, controllable, measurable and so on: that which is within the natural world. And while Theists (and Deists, even more so) tend to believe the actions of God can sometimes be detected in nature, or the evidences of His existence can be detected in His works, none of them thinks that the existence of God is confined within the mere natural world (i.e. He is not "empirical").

So your claim is just not true. Sorry, but it can't be saved. It's just wrong.
Empirical as I had pointed out relates to 'observation' and 'experience'.
Empirical can be justified with the following'
  • 1. Common sense - very limited
    2. Science - very reliable and objective
    3. Critical Philosophy backed by Science and common sense.
The above provided the strongest foundation to verify what is really real.

Theism on the other hand relied heavily on faith, i.e. belief without proof nor reason.

Note quarks are empirical which cannot be seen by the senses but can be implied from its effects, i.e. experiences.
It is the same for God
There you go. You're right. It's the actions of God which may be seen as empirical, not God Himself. But note the difference! It's crucial.
Thus my point, invisibles like quarks are empirical so can God be empirical.
I am not insisting on that as a personal view, I am saying there are theists who use this argument to insist God is empirical just as quarks are empirical.

Note Hume has proven the impulse of 'cause and effect' is merely psychological i.e. based on custom, habits and constant conjunction.
Therefore whatever conclusions one arrive on based on cause and effect has to be qualified as psychological.
What is worse is theists take the biggest leap ever to arrive at the First Cause merely based on faith [i.e. belief without proof nor justifiable reason].

Kant has proven the idea of 'First Cause' is an illusion and an impossibility. The basis of the 'First Cause' is fundamentally psychological.
The basis of 'psychological' is more tenable and feasible because whichever way it is reducible to the human mind [i.e. psychological].

The advantage of the psychological and restricting the issue to the mind of the individual and individual and groups can take control in a fool proof manner [to be established] to regulate the negatives and evil side effects [which is glaringly evident] arising from theism.
Humanity has been complaining of human-based evils and violence but there is no God appearing or otherwise to resolve the potential evil. Rather theists [being the majority in control] has been giving all sorts of excuses why God cannot resolve this human-based Problem of Evil.
which is deemed to be empirical by many, i.e. can be inferred from God's effects.
As I had argued there limitations to this argument based on empiricism.
Ah, I see...fallacy of amphiboly. I've pegged the problem now.

it seems you've mistaken God's actions in the natural realm (empirical) for God Himself. But think again: if you find a drawing on a cave wall, you have not located the Neanderthal who may have made them. You've only located her works, not the Neanderthal herself. If you look at an invention, like the light bulb, you have not located (and limited) Thomas Edison. The agent of the empirical change is bigger and more complex than the realm in which he or she has done his or her empirical works.
Note I highlighted the issue of 'the map is not the territory' which I am very well aware of.
In the above example, even if I had located the inventor, Thomas Edison, at the highest level of philosophical critical analysis, the "I AM" of Edison, i.e. his permanent soul is still an illusion. [Kantian again].
This is problematic in how to prove the mechanics of how the transcendental can link to the empirical.
It depends on how you are understanding "transcendent." It seems you are thinking it must be strictly carved off from the empirical. But the actual vexed question between Materialists and Dualists is this: is there more than the Material world. And you won't solve that question by fiat, nor by complaining that the transcendent hasn't rendered itself to you for scientific testing; because you're going to keep sensing transcendent things, even if you can't get them under your control.
The transcendental is empirical but beyond scientifically verifiable things which include the empirical possible [e.g. scientific theories and fictions] and also the empirical impossible.
I have stated the "transcendent" [contrast transcendental] is a clear cut independent from the empirical, i.e. they are empirically impossible.
Consciousness is an example. We have done much to map the brain (empirical) but are getting no traction at all on what the real nature of "consciousness" is. You can't prove I have it, and I can't prove you have it. We can only judge it by effects -- you empirically read this email, and suppose I am a consciousness, not a bot or a delusion. But you don't know. Empirically, you see the evidence of my consciousness; but ultimately, you cannot prove there is a "me" behind it.

In fact, as you mentioned in a previous response, "consciousness" is so mysterious that philosophers refer to it as an "epiphenomenon" or as "emergent"; but this is because they actually have no idea how it can happen at all. The philosophy of mind is in its infancy, in this respect. It's subject remains elusive at the moment.
I don't see there is a serious ontological [transcendent] issue with consciousness from the perspective of Science.
There is an empirical problem of scientists having to explain the empirical problem of the basis of consciousness, i.e. how it works.
Scientist are not bothered with the ontological existence of consciousness and that is totally not within the scope of Science at all, i.e. moot.

But it seems that now you're going with the "illusion" argument. But that too needs proof. Your previous syllogism certainly doesn't provide what we need in that respect, because of the amphiboly fallacy in it. So what would you offer that's better?
I have the proofs, it is Kantian and supported by various Eastern Philosophies.
To grasp the proof you will have to read up Kant and Eastern philosophy very seriously to understand [not necessary to agree with] the proof.
It will be incremental knowledge to you to take up this challenge.
DNA wise all humans are subjected to a very serious inherent existential crisis and the majority relied on theism as a 'crutch' to stabilize the psyche.
Ah, the "crutch" returns. :D Well, this begs so many questions I won't even start. I'm trying to keep this short. However, you've still arbitrarily pathologized Theism, and yet have given no evidence for why your shorthand "history of belief" here should be believed at all. The crutch story is, at best, mildly plausible to the dismissive mind; but other explanations are surely much more plausible.

One might like to think all religion is no more than a crutch. But that's conveniently self-praising and dismissive of the other side, while not noting that the same argument works even better against oneself. It might feel good to be able to dismiss the opposition in such an offhanded way, but really, that's just wish-fulfillment, if Freud's right.

Again you can see that the "crutch" story is a very, very poor argument, a weapon that turns in the hand of the user and cuts her -- if it cuts at all -- worse than her opponents.
This 'crutch' basis is different from the very superficial general claims of other non-theists.
One has to dig deep and justify it with evidence and critical thinking.
One clue [tip of an iceberg and many] is Kierkegaard [he was a famous theist philosopher] and his existential psychology.
Fear and Trembling (original Danish title: Frygt og Bæven) is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John of the Silence).
The title is a reference to a line from Philippians 2:12, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling." — itself a probable reference to Psalms 55:5,[1] "Fear and trembling came upon me..." (the Greek is identical).
-wiki
The clue of the above is directed towards psychology plus theology, but with further digging, the ultimate is merely psychology only as substantiated and verifiable to other Eastern and Western philosophical views.

At present seemingly you are avoiding and totally disregarding the psychological perspective of yourself and humanity in relation with theism?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:58 am

Reflex wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:11 pm
“Spectrum,” “Prismatic” and now “Veritas Aequitas” — different names but the same old nonsense.

Perfection aside, I regard anyone who denies the logical necessity of a First Cause as deranged. Can anyone prove that assessment wrong?
Is that an issue?
Note I am a member here since July 2012.
It is my discretion to post where I want if I don't find the other sites not conducive in its present conditions. I have stopped [most likely permanent] posting as 'Spectrum' there.
Note I am a member here since July 2012.
Btw, what is your nick in PC, so I get a background of your perspective [save you having to repeat] just in case we got entangled in a discussion here.

I wrote above, the principle of 'cause and effect' is fundamentally psychological.
To reify the First Cause out of a psychological base is an illusion. Kant demonstrated this effect in depth and convincingly.
To a schizo what is perceived as real when it is not by normal convention, is a logical necessity within the principles of schizos.

Preferably you should provide your justified arguments as a requirement of any Philosophical Forum.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am

seeds wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:36 am
seeds wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:09 pm
...your problem lies in the false assumption implicit in P2 of your syllogism.

God does not have to meet some ideal form of “perfection.”

He (or she, or it, or whatever term you wish to use) simply needs to be in possession of the attributes necessary for creating a universe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Note as mentioned in the OP, an imperfect God would be a potential loser to a God that is claimed to be perfect.
Note my argument above why a less than perfect God is an inferior God which most theists will not accept because such an inferior God will be ridiculed by theists who believe in a more superior or perfect God.
Note how the Abrahamic believers condemned the pagans and those who pray to a God represented by idols, etc....

...Another point is a less than perfect God will be exposed to the problem of infinite regression.
In the very first line of your OP, you made the following assertion:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.
With that in mind, let’s break down your reply back to me...
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Note as mentioned in the OP, an imperfect God would be a potential loser to a God that is claimed to be perfect.
So what?

And how, exactly, would that be evidence of the impossibility of God being real?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Note my argument above why a less than perfect God is an inferior God which most theists will not accept because such an inferior God will be ridiculed by theists who believe in a more superior or perfect God.
The fact that theists (humans) get caught up in petty arguments regarding the differences in their beliefs, once again elicits the question of how is that evidence of the impossibility of God being real?
As I had mentioned there are various sets of belief in theism [..I have listed in this thread] e.g. the empirical, the empirical possible, the transcendental, the transcendent [ontological].

If a theist insist his god is fully empirical [e.g. an empirical entity billion light years away] but not yet known, that would be an empirically possible God. It is thus possible to be real. - note "possible'.
Then the question of whether it is really real will depend the empirical evidence available to justify its real existence. So far there are no evidence for any empirical possible God except those based on faith.

Note by normal convention, a God by default has to be a perfect God than which no greater can be idealized.

But as I had argued an empirical God by the principles of empiricalism is by default limited and thus potentially inferior by reason to a transcendent God.
If any theists are willing to accept that his God is inferior to another superior God but not proven, there is no issue. There are many theists who prays to empirical things and idols as representatives of their God and they accept their gods as inferior to some other god and do not think further than that.

The point is, an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:53 am
Another point is a less than perfect God will be exposed to the problem of infinite regression.
Infinite regression is a problem that confronts any and all concepts concerning the origins of reality.

For example, what was it that caused the initial circumstances of the alleged Big Bang (i.e., where did the infinitesimal kernel of compressed matter come from)?

Which then leads to what caused the cause of the Big Bang, and then what caused the cause of the cause of the BB – ad infinitum.

The bottom line is that absolutely none of your arguments thus far have offered the slightest bit of support to your initial assertion of the impossibility of God being real.
_______
Infinite regression is not an issue with empirical claims.
Science and critical philosophy do not claim a First Cause.
Science assumes there are other Big Bangs before the current one.

The problem is theists claim God as the First Cause without any justified grounds [other than pure reason]. Such claims based on pure reason are illusory.

I don't see you countering any of my premises successfully?
Just take my P1, P2 and later notes by the horn and show me why they are invalid.

Note I provided the alternative to why God is an impossibility but only possible logically whilst driven by psychological elements in the mind. Any views on this?
Note the clue of psychology from Kierkegaard I mentioned above in another post.

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

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Reflex » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:58 am
Reflex wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:11 pm
“Spectrum,” “Prismatic” and now “Veritas Aequitas” — different names but the same old nonsense.

Perfection aside, I regard anyone who denies the logical necessity of a First Cause as deranged. Can anyone prove that assessment wrong?
Is that an issue?
Yes.
I wrote above, the principle of 'cause and effect' is fundamentally psychological.
To reify the First Cause out of a psychological base is an illusion. Kant demonstrated this effect in depth and convincingly.
To a schizo what is perceived as real when it is not by normal convention, is a logical necessity within the principles of schizos.

Preferably you should provide your justified arguments as a requirement of any Philosophical Forum.
Providing an argument for someone who is so deranged as to temporalize “First Cause” is irrational.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:02 am

Here is one interesting point related to the OP
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:18 pm
Illusions cannot exist without some facet of truth, hence illusions as deficiencies of truth are real in themselves through the truths through which they exist.

For example: A unicorn is an illusion, however it is composed of a horse, horn, etc...all of which are true and existent. As an illusion the unicorn exists, but is deficient in the respect it does not fully exist empirically except as an idea...however the idea exists partially through brain chemicals, etc...hence the unicorn still exists as an idea.
A unicorn has full empirical characteristic therefore is an empirical possibility and not an illusion. It is a matter of providing the necessary evidence [from Earth or outer space] to justify its existence empirically.

An example of an empirical illusion is a stick appearing as bent when placed between water and air but the reality there is no bent stick at all.
Because the illusion is an empirical one, it is not an idea but rather it is a concept.

Note the following definition [as I used it],
concept = contain empirical elements only, a table, even a tea cup in space ..
idea = do not contain and devoid of any empirical elements, e.g. God, soul.

Whether it is an empirical illusion or illusory idea, both are represented by real neural connectivity and activities in the brain.
Therefore it is critical we understand the neural mechanics that enable concepts and ideas to emerge.

Note the empirical illusions in terms of synaethesia, i.e. cross wiring of senses where one can taste music. So it is matter of rewiring the brain to correct the illusion which I am optimistic in the future.

I believed the illusion of God which has pros and cons are also supported by certain neural processes in the brain which can be rewired [fool proof methods] to eliminate the terrible cons manifesting from theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils as a divine duty.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests