God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:04 am

Reflex wrote:
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.
It would preferable you do not resort to ad hominen [which is very telling] but rather focus on the arguments. Your discretion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:53 am
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..

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:53 am
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.
There is no contradiction if you listen carefully to what is being pointed to using words.

The THAT is the known. The KNOWN cannot know...it's already KNOWN...there is no other ''knower'' outside of this immediate direct KNOWING...aka the knower.

The word ''that'' AS IN ''THAT WHICH KNOWS'' ....implies a ''knower'' ..it's pointing to ''that'' which knows..the subject. The subject is no thing( no concept)
But when pointing to the knower, aka the subject, aka no thing.... how is that possible without using coceptual language?

What happens then, is the subject becomes an object...the subject becomes a thing (a concept) a concept, that is really just no thing.

I'm saying, there is no ''that'' aka subject that knows....the subject is the known, it is knowledge. It is the knowing...knowing is not what a subject has in it's possession...It's not a subject that knows...the subject IS known, aka is knowledge aka is the knowing.
Knowing is one with itself alone.

When we use the word ''contradiction'' that's just pointing to the idea that there is here no thing thinging...a contradiction, but no thing is making that contradiction lets be clear about what we are saying. Reality is ultimately NONDUAL.

I can understand how this might be hard to grasp for the mind of concepts, because that's all it knows, it does not know anything else, until it realises a concept is an illusory thing...and all these illusory things belong to no one, aka everything and everyone.

The mind needs to possess some thing...but when letting go it will be grateful to life that provides everything out of nothing, albeit an illusory nothing.

This is nothing and everything IS THE SAME ONE REALITY HERE NOW...IT'S purely divine ..and anyone who mocks it ...imho, is totally ignorant, and deluded as to what's actually going on.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:32 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:53 am
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..
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:53 am
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.
There is no contradiction if you listen carefully to what is being pointed to using words.

The THAT is the known. The KNOWN cannot know...it's already KNOWN...there is no other ''knower'' outside of this immediate direct KNOWING...aka the knower.

The word ''that'' AS IN ''THAT WHICH KNOWS'' ....implies a ''knower'' ..it's pointing to ''that'' which knows..the subject. The subject is no thing( no concept)
But when pointing to the knower, aka the subject, aka no thing.... how is that possible without using coceptual language?

What happens then, is the subject becomes an object...the subject becomes a thing (a concept) a concept, that is really just no thing.

I'm saying, there is no ''that'' aka subject that knows....the subject is the known, it is knowledge. It is the knowing...knowing is not what a subject has in it's possession...It's not a subject that knows...the subject IS known, aka is knowledge aka is the knowing.
Knowing is one with itself alone.

When we use the word ''contradiction'' that's just pointing to the idea that there is here no thing thinging...a contradiction, but no thing is making that contradiction lets be clear about what we are saying. Reality is ultimately NONDUAL.

I can understand how this might be hard to grasp for the mind of concepts, because that's all it knows, it does not know anything else, until it realises a concept is an illusory thing...and all these illusory things belong to no one, aka everything and everyone.

The mind needs to possess some thing...but when letting go it will be grateful to life that provides everything out of nothing, albeit an illusory nothing.

This is nothing and everything IS THE SAME ONE REALITY HERE NOW...IT'S purely divine ..and anyone who mocks it ...imho, is totally ignorant, and deluded as to what's actually going on.
That is actually one of my main point, i.e. it is an inherent tendency of the mind as you have stated;

1. "The mind needs to possess some thing."
This is the reification process.

The reification process is such that the mind [as in] reify 'something' out of 'nothing'.
This something reified is the objectification of the idea of a God which is only an illusion and is impossible to be real.

The OP argued this supposedly real God is merely a reified illusion and an impossibility to be real to the extent of delivering a message [in a holy book] via a prophet with commands that inspire believers to commit evil acts and violence upon non-believers.

The basis of this;
1. "The mind needs to possess some thing."
is obviously psychological.
So whatever solutions to any God's problem [terrible cons of evil acts] should be psychological, not something divine.

Now, the Eastern Philosophers have been using this psychological approach to deal with the God related problems for since over 2500 years ago and longer.
Why theists are unable to recognize this alternative is because most are relying on theism as a "crutch" and are very sensitive if the 'crutch' is tugged or threatened in any way.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:02 am

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.
However, according to you..God is an Impossibilty.

This is a story your mind is weaving about what you believe to be real..aka other peoples beliefs about God and what that God stands for.
But the ironic thing is, this story, is your own projection mistakenly believed to be reality ...a reality that ONLY YOU have created.
No one else is weaving those thoughts for you.
You have no proof or evidence or access to another mind. Do you even realise that two minds can never meet? ..but here you are discussing what you believe to be the thoughts of other minds...how very strange of you, is it not?

You are manifesting this story and mistaking for reality. You..aka the mind, are bascially convincing yourself there is no God, and yet talk about one as if there is.This is what the mind does, it's a trickter of illusion.

Only an unshackled mind can see God.

God is not what thought thinks it is.

God is ever silent...it's only mind, faltering and uncertain, that thinks and talks about God. God does not proof-read or edit mind's thinking, mind does so in the light of impersonal illumination.

God is the illumination...aka no thing illuminating itself.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:32 am
Why theists are unable to recognize this alternative is because most are relying on theism as a "crutch" and are very sensitive if the 'crutch' is tugged or threatened in any way.
Well the one that would be relying on a crutch would be unlimted potential playing the game of limitation, a game it plays with itself because limitation just happens to be the particular belief that unlimted potential it is holding onto right now, and nothing is going to shift this limiting belief if that's all that is believed...clinging or sticking to ..so to speak.
Letting go of a limted belief, is clarity of mind to be open and see all possibilty available ... to see that there is no thing being limited and that here there is only unlimited freedom in every moment expressing itself infinitley.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:32 am
This something reified is the objectification of the idea of a God which is only an illusion and is impossible to be real.
The illusion is real insomuch as knowedge aka concepts inform one.

There is no escaping the the illusion of knowledge, it's a real illusion. If there was NO KNOWLEDGE... what the heck would ''ILLUSION'' or ''GOD'' even mean?

There is no escape from the illusion, because there is no one to escape from it. There's just IT

IT IS..without doubt or error.

.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2814
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by -1- » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:19 am

HexHammer wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:21 am
I assume you either are a programmer, knows the deep web well or have access to hack program?
You are asking what you assume?

Can't you even assume anything by yourself?

Do you have mastery of your own mind and thoughts to any degree?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:10 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:39 am

God is the illumination...aka no thing illuminating itself.

.
The mind aka the identified one..(ego) will then want to know why this self-evident 'BEINGNESS'.... is called God.. why call this God?

..and yet mind has no problem identifying itself as it assumes to know itself aka as an identifable label..

So then it wonders...who is this God thing? ..surely there's just me and my thoughts here, what I have called myself...what I know myself to be...so who or what is this God? ..where is this God...I can only see me...what is this other thing?

It has no problem calling a seen image, aka an object a tree, or a flower, ..it has no problem seeing a body made up of arms and legs and head and feet etc..and it calls that ME...yet frowns when the mere thought of God pops up.
We only believe what we can see as imaged...but this is knowledge, and knowledge is made up by the seer of the image.
It never occurs to the mind that there is no thing behind the image.
The seer cannot see itself, it can only see the image it projects from itself as an object of it's desire. That's what is meant by ''we are made in his image''


So who is making up these labels aka images..?
A flower doesn't know it's a flower, a tree doesn't know it's a tree...flower is known, tree is known...who is the knower? can the known be known by the known?

Who labels ?...why call some thing God ...The answer is clear, it is called God for the exact same reason that you call yourself Veritas Aequitas.

Without a label, what the heck is KNOWN?

What can the mind do with no knowledge?


No one has ever seen a mind, mind is knowledge.. knowing itself...albeit an illusion, an image of the imagless...a projection of light...illuminating itself.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:32 am
So whatever solutions to any God's problem [terrible cons of evil acts] should be psychological, not something divine.
No thing is being psychological.

Being psychological is identification with the wrong I.


This is divine knowledge.

It's known as ENLIGHTENEMENT.



You have no argument, sorry to inform you.

.

Evil action is a belief...if you insist on that belief as being real for you, then you can just as easy stop believing in evil action. If it's your belief, then not believing is also yours... and that goes for every believer. If you don't want to see evil, then don't create it in the first place, this is too simple.

A belief, requires a believer...if you don't like what you are believing, then stop believing it...if you have the power to make one, then you also have the power not to make one.

.

.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5957
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:01 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:46 am
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.
Of course. But I have not met people so foolish as to imagine God is a big man with a white beard. Maybe they exist, and maybe, as you say, they are "not smart." But that is not a fair representation of the average of Theism, for certain. It's a reductio ad absurdum, at the very least; ad hominem, possibly; and definitely not a reasonable claim to make about how even a moderately intelligent Theist thinks.
...their God is an empirical God who will make empirical deliverables.
Here's your amphiboly mistake again. We need to sort it out.

To say that someone "makes empirical deliverables" does not imply that He Himself is "empirical," any more than to say that if a man builds a house, he IS the house.
Theism on the other hand relied heavily on faith, i.e. belief without proof nor reason.
I know that Dawkins and others of his ilk think this is what "faith" means. And they can even find a few pietist or mystical Theists who will accept that definition. But in the main, I would argue it's completely incorrect, even when a naive fideist accepts such a definition.

This is a big topic: but "faith," as Christians understand it, is a decision made based on evidence, where that evidence is strong and reasonable but not yet absolute. Science is also like that: for nobody has done all the experiments necessary to prove beyond ALL doubt even one scientific principle. There is always the chance, no matter how remote, that the next experiment will produce an anomaly that destroys a basic theory, or which forces a revision of that theory. So every scientist, in advancing any judgment he or she thinks is actually true, is exercising faith.

Or take the example of a man who thinks his wife loves him. He does not know for certain: all he has is little gestures, a smile, a gift, a promise, an various other signs of affection and attachment. But he can't know. Women do abandon their husbands, have affairs, or fake attachment to keep things level for the children. Maybe she's just a very good cheat. He's going to have to believe it based on the quality of her character and the sum of the available data; but he's never going to know absolutely. He's going to have to have some faith in her, or he will never have any confidence in her love.

In fact, there's nothing exclusively religious about the use of faith; you do it every day. You just have faith in different things, perhaps.
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].
This also isn't true. There actually is an ironclad rational argument to First Cause, and every good philosopher of science knows it. It caused a major crisis in the scientific community, back in the '60s, in fact. That was when it was conclusively discovered that time is linear and time, space and the universe had to have a beginning (now called, "The Big Bang"). That makes absolutely rationally necessary some kind of First Cause, because of the infinite regress impossibility problem.

So Theism is actually in the driver's seat on this one. The obvious conclusions favour it. Now it's secularism that's back on its heels, reeling, and trying to come up with alternate scenarios to make the universe plausibly eternal again (see the Multiverse Theory, the Infinite Universes Theory, and so on). The problem is that all these theories are a) unempirical, b) purely theoretical, and c) conveniently permanently unprovable, by nature of their own terms.

So ironically, now who's reaching for desperate answers "without proof or justifiable reason"? However, in practice, most ordinary anti-Theistic people react a different way: by ignoring or denying the existence of the problem, so serious and so potentially destructive as it is to their worldview.
Kant has proven the idea of 'First Cause' is an illusion and an impossibility.
Kant was wrong about that. He didn't have 20th Century science.
Rather theists [being the majority in control] has been giving all sorts of excuses why God cannot resolve this human-based Problem of Evil.
It's a problem for both sides, actually.

In theology, it's called "The Theodicy Problem," and there's a lot of interesting Theistic thought and literature dealing with it. It's too much to tap here, without making this message prohibitively long, though.

But in secular thought, it's an even more serious problem. For secularism doesn't even have a basis for posing the question. Lacking objective criteria for even determining what "evil" is, secularists cannot even rationally propose the question, let alone explain evil. In order to pose it, they're obliged to speak from a Theist's perspective, and say, "Well, you Theists believe in evil, so how do you explain...," whereas they themselves lack even that basic term to make the question cogent.

So far from having an answer to evil, secularism does not even possess a rational question. And if you've wondered why historically, so many secular regimes have so little strength to avoid evil, that is one major reason why. They don't even have stable terms for identifying it, so anything could potentially go. Good and evil will happen at the accident of circumstances, and be justified on nothing more than political propaganda, since nothing else exists in secularism to justify any particular moral assessments.
I don't see there is a serious ontological [transcendent] issue with consciousness from the perspective of Science.
Then you will need to read the literature. I highly recommend Jaegwon Kim's book Essays on the Metaphysics of Mind. You won't find a better and more scholarly treatment of the issues than that, I think.
I have the proofs, it is Kantian and supported by various Eastern Philosophies.
Actually, neither does what you hope.
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.
Done, actually.

I don't know whether by Eastern philosophy you're speaking of Buddhism (the Dhammapada, perhaps?) Hinduism (the Gita?), Taoism (the Tao?), or whatever, but I've read them all, and thought about them very carefully. But in short, the problem with Eastern philosophy as a whole is its anti-rationalism, its mysticism. It's certainly not a good bedfellow with Kant, who would surely have had no truck at all with it. He was far too rational and logical for that.
Kierkegaard [he was a famous theist philosopher] and his existential psychology...
You mean "Fear and Trembling"? (I see below that you do.) I've read it. I can see it on my shelf right now; what would you like to discuss? I know (and, for the most part, like Kierkegaard very well, actually. But he had his idea of faith only half right, I would say.
At present seemingly you are avoiding and totally disregarding the psychological perspective of yourself and humanity in relation with theism?
Not "avoiding." Asking you to justify your claims.

You have asked me to be short, so I can't grant myself enough space to ask all I would like to. But this much is quite fair: if you're going to insist that Theism is a "crutch," (by which presumably you intend to imply it's an unhealthy psychological dependency) you're going to have to justify your claim. It's not fair merely to throw out such blind pejoratives and walk away without showing one's hand now, is it?

But my main point is quite simple, actually: the "crutch" argument hurts your argument at least as much, and probably more, then it could ever hurt Theism, since it equally makes you a victim of your own "wish fulfillment."

I would suggest that rationally speaking, you'll probably not do well with that argument. I would suggest we should find a better one.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
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.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24541&start=30

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:34 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:32 am
So whatever solutions to any God's problem [terrible cons of evil acts] should be psychological, not something divine.
No thing is being psychological.
Being psychological is identification with the wrong I.
This is divine knowledge.
It's known as ENLIGHTENEMENT.

You have no argument, sorry to inform you.
It is not I have no argument. The syllogism I presented in the OP is an argument [you still insist it is not?]. It is just that you do not agree with it. Your hasty response like the above to brush people's argument off without understanding what an argument is, is typical of the psychological effects associated with the psychological origin of a belief in God.

I read your above posts, but they are all over. I'll pick certain relevant views to discuss later.

Meanwhile, note the OP is about 'God'.
Note this article on what is understood and accepted by various theists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Do you agree with this article?
Why do you think your views above would fit within that article?

By the way, do you agree your 'God' is an objective reality?
Objective reality meant God is real and independent of human views.
Evil action is a belief...if you insist on that belief as being real for you, then you can just as easy stop believing in evil action. If it's your belief, then not believing is also yours... and that goes for every believer. If you don't want to see evil, then don't create it in the first place, this is too simple.

A belief, requires a believer...if you don't like what you are believing, then stop believing it...if you have the power to make one, then you also have the power not to make one.
Note it is very common for humans to be compelled [instinctually and subliminally] to believe in things and illusory things and for some beliefs a person just do not have the will to stop believing. One of such belief is God [as defined - note the wiki article].

There is a continuum of subjectivity and objectivity from opinions, believing and knowledge.
Opinions are merely thoughts but without justifications.
Beliefs relate to thoughts and inferences that one has justified evidence and argument but on a personal conviction rather than shared consensus like Science.
Knowledge is personal beliefs plus justification based on shared consensus, e.g. scientific knowledge.

As I had stated 'evil' is related to human acts that are net-negative to the individual and humanity.
Genocides which are evil acts for example can be easily verified and confirmed empirically thus then knowledge.
It is this sense 'evil' is objectively real.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:16 am

I thought we can keep it short but I am aware it is difficult especially on the issues surrounding 'God'.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:46 am
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.
Of course. But I have not met people so foolish as to imagine God is a big man with a white beard. Maybe they exist, and maybe, as you say, they are "not smart." But that is not a fair representation of the average of Theism, for certain. It's a reductio ad absurdum, at the very least; ad hominem, possibly; and definitely not a reasonable claim to make about how even a moderately intelligent Theist thinks.
Earlier, you made the bold statement 'NO theist accept God is empirical' thus I am countering you are wrong.
That you have not met anyone do not mean there are none.
My point is the majority of theists believe God to be empirical* and an objective reality.
* noted you want to discuss to clear ambiguities on this.
Would you accept if I bring in 'all theists' God is an objective reality'
...their God is an empirical God who will make empirical deliverables.
Here's your amphiboly mistake again. We need to sort it out.

To say that someone "makes empirical deliverables" does not imply that He Himself is "empirical," any more than to say that if a man builds a house, he IS the house.
That is a wrong analogy.
A man builds a house and that is a man-made house. 'Man' is the main set here.
God makes empirical deliverables imply [by most theists] God is empirical.

If you personally [& others] believe God is not empirical at all, then your God must be transcendental and transcendent [not transcendental & empirical].

Note my point here is God is either empirical or transcendental [and transcendent].
I have argued both are ultimately impossible and illusory/impossible respectively.

The more tenable explanation of how the idea of God emerged is psychological.
Theism on the other hand relied heavily on faith, i.e. belief without proof nor reason.
I know that Dawkins and others of his ilk think this is what "faith" means. And they can even find a few pietist or mystical Theists who will accept that definition. But in the main, I would argue it's completely incorrect, even when a naive fideist accepts such a definition.

This is a big topic: but "faith," as Christians understand it, is a decision made based on evidence, where that evidence is strong and reasonable but not yet absolute. Science is also like that: for nobody has done all the experiments necessary to prove beyond ALL doubt even one scientific principle. There is always the chance, no matter how remote, that the next experiment will produce an anomaly that destroys a basic theory, or which forces a revision of that theory. So every scientist, in advancing any judgment he or she thinks is actually true, is exercising faith.

Or take the example of a man who thinks his wife loves him. He does not know for certain: all he has is little gestures, a smile, a gift, a promise, an various other signs of affection and attachment. But he can't know. Women do abandon their husbands, have affairs, or fake attachment to keep things level for the children. Maybe she's just a very good cheat. He's going to have to believe it based on the quality of her character and the sum of the available data; but he's never going to know absolutely. He's going to have to have some faith in her, or he will never have any confidence in her love.

In fact, there's nothing exclusively religious about the use of faith; you do it every day. You just have faith in different things, perhaps.
Wonder why bring in Dawkins and his ilks.
Faith [not a religion] is generally defined as; Yes, everyone use 'faith' but what is the critical is the degree and context 'faith' is used.
When I rely on the weatherman or scientists for knowledge I am applying >80% faith but that is based on my confidence and justification and verification of the system [Scientific System and Method] they used to arrive at the knowledge. Scientists do use a small degree of faith in their observations and experiments but that is not more than 10%.

In the case of a belief in God, a theist rely on his own 100% faith and if he rely on his church or some other theists, it is then 100% faith upon 100% faith, i.e. there is no basis of justifiable proofs.
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].
This also isn't true. There actually is an ironclad rational argument to First Cause, and every good philosopher of science knows it. It caused a major crisis in the scientific community, back in the '60s, in fact. That was when it was conclusively discovered that time is linear and time, space and the universe had to have a beginning (now called, "The Big Bang"). That makes absolutely rationally necessary some kind of First Cause, because of the infinite regress impossibility problem.

So Theism is actually in the driver's seat on this one. The obvious conclusions favour it. Now it's secularism that's back on its heels, reeling, and trying to come up with alternate scenarios to make the universe plausibly eternal again (see the Multiverse Theory, the Infinite Universes Theory, and so on). The problem is that all these theories are a) unempirical, b) purely theoretical, and c) conveniently permanently unprovable, by nature of their own terms.

So ironically, now who's reaching for desperate answers "without proof or justifiable reason"? However, in practice, most ordinary anti-Theistic people react a different way: by ignoring or denying the existence of the problem, so serious and so potentially destructive as it is to their worldview.
You will say 'anti-theistic' but in fact they are truth seekers seeking convincing verifiable and justifiable truths.
I am not relying on Scientific evidence to prove there is no First Cause.
As mentioned my basis is Kantian.
Kant has proven the idea of 'First Cause' is an illusion and an impossibility.
Kant was wrong about that. He didn't have 20th Century science.
You got to read Kant [he deserved to be read since he is one of the greatest philosopher of all times] to understand [not necessary agree] his argument.

Note Popper stated Scientific Theories are at best 'polished' conjectures.
Science is great, consistent, objective and useful but not as great as philosophy-proper.
Rather theists [being the majority in control] has been giving all sorts of excuses why God cannot resolve this human-based Problem of Evil.
It's a problem for both sides, actually.

In theology, it's called "The Theodicy Problem," and there's a lot of interesting Theistic thought and literature dealing with it. It's too much to tap here, without making this message prohibitively long, though.

But in secular thought, it's an even more serious problem. For secularism doesn't even have a basis for posing the question. Lacking objective criteria for even determining what "evil" is, secularists cannot even rationally propose the question, let alone explain evil. In order to pose it, they're obliged to speak from a Theist's perspective, and say, "Well, you Theists believe in evil, so how do you explain...," whereas they themselves lack even that basic term to make the question cogent.

So far from having an answer to evil, secularism does not even possess a rational question. And if you've wondered why historically, so many secular regimes have so little strength to avoid evil, that is one major reason why. They don't even have stable terms for identifying it, so anything could potentially go. Good and evil will happen at the accident of circumstances, and be justified on nothing more than political propaganda, since nothing else exists in secularism to justify any particular moral assessments.
As I had stated we are not chasing after ontological evil.

For secular 'evil', there cannot be a fixed meaning nor universal re the term 'evil'.
The critical issue is merely arriving at a proper definition of 'evil' as a placeholder or a pigeon-hole that is acceptable by the majority.
What is critical is we identify all the human acts that can be put into that pigeon-hole tag as 'evil'.
For a start, human acts like genocides, mass rapes, murders, tortures are acts that ordinary people will agree as very detrimental and a bane [net-negative] to the well being on individual[s] and humanity. Most will not dispute if we label them 'evil'. It is not difficult to list what is evil from all known human acts and thoughts. Whatever acts are disputable, ambiguous and marginal can be set aside for further deliberations.

At present the term 'evil' [secular] is being thrown around everywhere and I don't see any serious disputes within it secular users.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil
I don't see there is a serious ontological [transcendent] issue with consciousness from the perspective of Science.
Then you will need to read the literature. I highly recommend Jaegwon Kim's book Essays on the Metaphysics of Mind. You won't find a better and more scholarly treatment of the issues than that, I think.
I have scanned Jaegwon Kim's view before but I don't believe he touched on the ontological and transcendent issues. Besides there a loads of views from the other side of his camp.
I have the proofs, it is Kantian and supported by various Eastern Philosophies.
Actually, neither does what you hope.
I understand this is a mere statement since we have not gone into a detailed discussion of it.
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.
Done, actually.

I don't know whether by Eastern philosophy you're speaking of Buddhism (the Dhammapada, perhaps?) Hinduism (the Gita?), Taoism (the Tao?), or whatever, but I've read them all, and thought about them very carefully. But in short, the problem with Eastern philosophy as a whole is its anti-rationalism, its mysticism. It's certainly not a good bedfellow with Kant, who would surely have had no truck at all with it. He was far too rational and logical for that.
If the above are your views, then I am sure you have not read them in serious depth.

Eastern Philosophy range from Kindergarten to PhD in terms of logic and rationality. It is likely you have attended 'college' levels only.

Note, especially the timeline from BCE:
The development of Indian logic dates back to the anviksiki of Medhatithi Gautama (c. 6th century BCE) the Sanskrit grammar rules of Pāṇini (c. 5th century BCE); the Vaisheshika school's analysis of atomism (c. 6th century BCE to 2nd century BCE); the analysis of inference by Gotama (c. 6th century BC to 2nd century CE), founder of the Nyaya school of Hindu philosophy; and the tetralemma of Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century CE).

Indian logic stands as one of the three original traditions of logic, alongside the Greek and the Chinese logic. The Indian tradition continued to develop through to early modern times, in the form of the Navya-Nyāya school of logic.
The point is the logic development from Eastern Philosophy did not get more organized and systematic like the Greeks and Western Philosophy.
This is why Kant's systematic approach is very effective to reinforce the philosophy of Buddhist's and others.
(I'd spent 3 continuous years full time -averaging 6 hours a day researching Kant. In philosophy such a CV item is necessary - no intention to brag. The above effort [stated for whatever its worth] however do not necessary guarantee full understanding of Kant)
Kierkegaard [he was a famous theist philosopher] and his existential psychology...
You mean "Fear and Trembling"? (I see below that you do.) I've read it. I can see it on my shelf right now; what would you like to discuss? I know (and, for the most part, like Kierkegaard very well, actually. But he had his idea of faith only half right, I would say.
The main thrust of Kierkegaard is about existential psychology thus my point re psychology as the basis of theism.

It is good thing Kierkegaard's faith is half-right which meant he was breaking out of the 100% blind faith mold of ordinary theist into a more rational understanding of a belief in God that involve the individual's psychology.
He is half right about this psychological approach but at least he is pointing the way to the real truth, i.e. theism is fundamentally psychological as expressed in the Eastern Philosophies.
At present seemingly you are avoiding and totally disregarding the psychological perspective of yourself and humanity in relation with theism?
Not "avoiding." Asking you to justify your claims.

You have asked me to be short, so I can't grant myself enough space to ask all I would like to. But this much is quite fair: if you're going to insist that Theism is a "crutch," (by which presumably you intend to imply it's an unhealthy psychological dependency) you're going to have to justify your claim. It's not fair merely to throw out such blind pejoratives and walk away without showing one's hand now, is it?

But my main point is quite simple, actually: the "crutch" argument hurts your argument at least as much, and probably more, then it could ever hurt Theism, since it equally makes you a victim of your own "wish fulfillment."

I would suggest that rationally speaking, you'll probably not do well with that argument. I would suggest we should find a better one.
You have not acknowledge nor present a decent argument against the 'psychological' perspective at all.

Note one point [an ace card in the sleeve] is 'man' is always within the background of any idea of God. There is no escape from human psychology ultimately.

I did not say 'crutch' i.e. as a totally unhealthy nor derogatory dependency.
It is definitely a psychological 'crutch' but it a critical necessity for the majority and an optimal one [against its very terrible cons] to the existing circumstances.

I have stated the terrible cons of theism [from the minority] are outweighing all the pros of theism as we move towards the future [note potential extermination of the species from one sole threat, i.e. Islam], thus we need to recognize the truth of this psychological 'crutch' and dependency.
Note this 'crutch' is inherent and unavoidable DNA wise, so we MUST find fool proof replacements.

ps. it a long reply, so do not want to waste time rereading to do tedious editing. Apologies for any language errors.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5957
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:16 am
Earlier, you made the bold statement 'NO theist accept God is empirical' thus I am countering you are wrong.
This response, I have to say, is a bit silly. Of course there are outliers in all groups. A generalization is not invalidated by marginal cases.
My point is the majority of theists believe God to be empirical* and an objective reality.
"Empirical" and "objective reality" are very different terms. Theism (*cough, cough*) I mean, thinking Theism, asserts the latter but not the former.
God makes empirical deliverables imply [by most theists] God is empirical.
This isn't true, I'm afraid, and we should know it by way of an obvious error. The Creator does not necessarily possess all the same qualities as the creation. That was the point of the "house" analogy. So that's an irrational conclusion.
Note my point here is God is either empirical or transcendental [and transcendent].
This is a false dichotomy. And it's also the wrong terms. You need the terms "immanent" and "transcendent," not "empirical" and "transcendental."

Christian theology, for example, holds that God is both. And there's no logical either/or about it, because both are quite possible without mutual contradiction.
The more tenable explanation of how the idea of God emerged is psychological.
It's actually a terribly poor explanation. There's no rationale for the evolution of a property that (according to secular thought) is negatively related to reality, but is somehow "selected for" by evolution anyway. But evolutionary gradualism is no explanation for the psyche at all, as you'll soon find out if you read Jaegwon Kim's book, mentioned in the last response. "Emergence" is a false explanation: it actually explains nothing at all. But I'll have to let Kim make that case, because it's high level stuff and we can't unpack it all here.
Yes, everyone use 'faith' but what is the critical is the degree and context 'faith' is used.
Of course.
When I rely on the weatherman or scientists for knowledge I am applying >80% faith but that is based on my confidence and justification and verification of the system [Scientific System and Method] they used to arrive at the knowledge. Scientists do use a small degree of faith in their observations and experiments but that is not more than 10%.
You should supply your sources for these percentages, because they aren't close to accurate. The actually level of scientific uncertainty varies with each scientific question. So does the level of faith appropriate to each case. (I note, with some amusement, that you claim "the weatherman" as a reliable source; a source so questionably reliable that it is more-or-less a stock joke to point it out. But let that be.)
In the case of a belief in God, a theist rely on his own 100% faith and if he rely on his church or some other theists, it is then 100% faith upon 100% faith, i.e. there is no basis of justifiable proofs.
How absurd. Of course that's not true. But I suppose you must not know any reasonable representatives of Theism if you even suppose this is a fair characterization. I can only suggest you need to expand your social horizons; you'd find that theory refuted very quickly by your own experience.

I think that's a fair thing to say on the whole, actually. I'm getting a very strong sense that you've got little contact with reasoning Theists. I don't know where you live, but I think you must be somewhere were some very weird kind of subgroup of Theist is present, or where you just don't meet any at all. I can't otherwise account for (if you'll forgive me) how ill-informed your statements about them are. But they're way off.
You will say 'anti-theistic' but in fact they are truth seekers seeking convincing verifiable and justifiable truths.
Hmmm...who is the "they" in this statement? Who are these special people of whom you are speaking? Where might I locate these "truth seekers" who are in the blessed position of having "verified" and "justified truths," but somehow need "convincing" as well? :D

I don't buy that. You'll need to convince me. Of whom do you speak?
You got to read Kant...
Too late. I have.
Note Popper stated Scientific Theories are at best 'polished' conjectures.
So the "they" in your earlier statement couldn't have been "scientists," because as you say here, Popper debunked that. But in spite of that, this group of people of whom you spoke have revived "verification" as an epistemological possibility? I really must meet these folks...their powers are practically magical.
For secular 'evil', there cannot be a fixed meaning nor universal re the term 'evil'.
Actually, for secularism, the term "evil" can have no actual meaning at all, except "stuff I personally happen not to like at the moment," perhaps. It certainly refers to no real property of anything, for them.
The critical issue is merely arriving at a proper definition of 'evil' as a placeholder or a pigeon-hole that is acceptable by the majority.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...when did we decide that majoritarianism was right? I must have missed that argument. Moreover, how did we arrive at the idea that the majority had a right to define qualities that, according to secularism, don't even really exist? And why should we care what the majority finds "acceptable"?
I have scanned Jaegwon Kim's view before but I don't believe he touched on the ontological and transcendent issues. Besides there a loads of views from the other side of his camp.

Kim dispatches your idea of the psychological explanation of "emergence." And actually, at present there isn't much to be said for "the other side" at all -- emergentists are in a horrible hole, rationally speaking, one they don't know how to extricate themselves from. And that's where things really stand at the moment. But you'd need to know the field of the philosophy of mind to know I was telling you the truth about that.
If the above are your views, then I am sure you have not read them in serious depth.
I could show you my notated copies, if you were here. You'll just have to take my word for it. Or not.
It is likely you have attended 'college' levels only.
You are incorrect again, I'm afraid. But I'm amused by the ad hominem.
Kant's systematic approach is very effective to reinforce the philosophy of Buddhist's and others.
In a minute I'm going to start to suspect that perhaps you've never read Kant yourself. I really can't imagine there's anybody who would have done that, and had understood Kantian deontology at all, who would think that was true. Or maybe it's Buddhism you've got wrong, and that makes you think there are touch-points between it and Kant that just aren't there.

In short, Kant founded his whole philosophy on the idea of what experts call "rational performative consistency." Buddhism does not believe in rationality at all. In fact, in Buddhism as in Hinduism, logic and rationality don't really count, because reality itself is merely maya (illusion). Instead, they aim at "spiritual enlightenment" through the building up of karma and escape from the wheel of samsara, through the fulfillment of dharma.
You have not acknowledge
We've talked about it quite a bit, actually. I "acknowledged" what you said: I just thought it was completely wrong. That's quite a different thing.
nor present a decent argument against the 'psychological' perspective at all.
"Decent"? What quality of an argument makes it "decent"? That's a very funny thing to say. :D

Well, present a plausible explanation of religious psychology, especially one that isn't merely prejudicial and self-defeating (like I've shown that the crutch analogy is) and I'll be happy to speak to it. But you've got to give me something worth working with. Right now, all I've got from you on that is the "crutch" thing, and quite frankly, I think you'll find that it's a boat that won't float.

Let me repeat: if the "crutch" theory were true, it would allow me to dismiss your whole argument as mere "wish fulfillment." Why would you want that?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:56 am

I am trying to avoid the tediousness so I will attend to some of your points and perhaps attend to what is missed out later.
If you think any point is critical, let me know.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:38 am
If the above are your views, then I am sure you have not read them in serious depth.
I could show you my notated copies, if you were here. You'll just have to take my word for it. Or not.
Btw, how much time have you put into studying the Critique of Pure Reason and Kant's other books?
It is generally stated by academics one has to put in 3 years full time or 5 years part time to get a good grasp and understanding of [not necessary agree with] Kantian assuming one is an average student.

Reading from the physical book especially with Kant is not effective.
It is more effective to import the PDF into Microsoft Words to facilitate effective bookmarking.
One sentence of Kant could be half a page, thus one to parse the sentences into chewable bit.
In addition one has to grasp the meaning on single critical words and phrases in the context of the sentence, the chapters and the whole book.
Then I will draw a flowchart for each chapter and a master flowchart for the whole book with a common theme that flow through it.
It is likely you have attended 'college' levels only.
You are incorrect again, I'm afraid. But I'm amused by the ad hominem.
It not meant to be derogatory or insulting. I believe a personal assessment is necessary in this regard especially when we are involved in some serious discussion on the topic.

I admit I have grade school level on Kim [covered him on topic re Philosophical Realism verse Philosophical Anti-Realism] and will not be interested and is not in tip-top condition to discuss Kim with you unless the point is serious enough.
Kant's systematic approach is very effective to reinforce the philosophy of Buddhist's and others.
In a minute I'm going to start to suspect that perhaps you've never read Kant yourself. I really can't imagine there's anybody who would have done that, and had understood Kantian deontology at all, who would think that was true.
You can have your suspicion but I know what I have done.

There are various articles in the internet arguing why Kant's Maxim on 'lying' is not imperative is not an equivalent practical rule.

Here is one lead;
In several works, Kant claims that lying is always wrong, no matter what.

He is probably the most well‐known defender of an absolute prohibition against lying in the history of Western philosophy.

The chapter surveys what Kant says about lying in his writings. It is noteworthy that he never directly appeals to the categorical imperative in any of his arguments to show that lying is always wrong.

The chapter argues that the universal law version of the categorical imperative does not imply that lying is always wrong – one can consistently will that everyone follows maxims or principles that sometimes permit lying. Korsgaard to the contrary, the second version of the categorical imperative, which says that we should never treat another person as a mere means, does not imply that lying is never permissible. The chapter contends that Korsgaard's arguments rest on contentious interpretations of several ambiguous passages in Kant.

None of the versions of the categorical imperative commits Kant to an absolute prohibition against lying.

Not only does Kant fail to give a compelling argument for an absolute prohibition against lying, there are positive reasons to reject his absolutism. The duty not to lie can conflict with other moral duties. If lying is always wrong no matter what, then the duty not to lie must always be more important than any conflicting duty.

However, it is most implausible to hold that the duty not to lie is always more important than any conflicting duty. Kant's own example of lying to thwart the plans of a would‐be murderer is one of the best illustrations of this.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1 ... -chapter-4
Or maybe it's Buddhism you've got wrong, and that makes you think there are touch-points between it and Kant that just aren't there.

In short, Kant founded his whole philosophy on the idea of what experts call "rational performative consistency." Buddhism does not believe in rationality at all. In fact, in Buddhism as in Hinduism, logic and rationality don't really count, because reality itself is merely maya (illusion). Instead, they aim at "spiritual enlightenment" through the building up of karma and escape from the wheel of samsara, through the fulfillment of dharma.
With the amount of efforts I had put into them, I dare claim to be a near-expert on the following;
1. Kant
2. Buddhism
3. Islam
I am average and average+ on other philosophical subjects.

As I had stated Buddhism come in a range from kindergarten to PhD to cater the range of believers with different inclinations and competencies. The ultimate of Buddhism is an expectation of ALL [where possible] to reach the PhD levels where logic, rationality and practice is critical.

Your views of Hinduism and Buddhism above is merely 5/10 at least until you have show more of what you know re Buddhism.

uwot
Posts: 4360
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by uwot » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:00 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:01 pm
This is a big topic: but "faith," as Christians understand it, is a decision made based on evidence, where that evidence is strong and reasonable but not yet absolute.
So christians accept that their god is only an hypothesis.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:01 pm
Science is also like that: for nobody has done all the experiments necessary to prove beyond ALL doubt even one scientific principle. There is always the chance, no matter how remote, that the next experiment will produce an anomaly that destroys a basic theory, or which forces a revision of that theory.
That's called underdetermination; it will be introduced to students on any worthwhile undergraduate science course.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:01 pm
So every scientist, in advancing any judgment he or she thinks is actually true, is exercising faith.
Mr Can ,if you choose to define 'faith' as belief in a scientific hypothesis, that is entirely your business, but what scientific experiments have you done to test your god hypothesis?
What a scientist does is study phenomena, analyse them mathematically and if they are pushed, advance an hypothesis that they believe is a good explanation for the observed phenomena. Human beings, being creative monkeys can always find alternative explanations for the same phenomena, so what scientists sometimes do is design experiments that will produce results that will support some explanations at the expense of others. The reason they do the experiments is that they know they don't know the results until they see them. In the event of a disappointing result, some scientists will keep 'faith' in the undermined explanation and seek to support it with auxiliary hypotheses, which in turn they will devise experiments to test. Depending on the results of those experiments, a scientist will either give up, or continue trying to support their 'faith' until the funding runs out.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests