God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:38 am
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.
You have no authority of say they are the wrong terms.
There is no issue with "empirical" and "transcendental" within the context I used it.

I know the common terms are "immanent" and "transcendent."
Where God is claimed to be 'immanent' where is God hiding within nature, as energy, quarks, God's particle or what?
What theists claim is God is there but cannot be seen by humans with whatever means.

When one believe in something that cannot be seen and act upon its command, it open the potential to evils [good included].

This is same with a person who 'see' things but cannot be seen by others. Some will even act on the commands from such visions and hearings to kill others.
He confessed to all of them [the murders], and initially claimed to have been obeying the orders of a demon, manifested in the form of a dog, "Harvey", who belonged to his neighbor "Sam".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz


Point is, from Kant's perspective, whether God is claimed to be immanent and/or transcendent, both are culminated from an natural transcendental illusion.
Note Kant on the following;
Kant in CPR wrote:The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397
Kant's overall argument is as follows;
  • 1. All transcendental ideas [only 3] are illusions.
    2. God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is an illusion
The premises above are backed by a set of complex arguments.
The 3 transcendental ideas are God, the Soul, the 100% Whole Universe.

If you have read the Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, then show me where I am wrong?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:02 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:21 am
What theists claim is God is there but cannot be seen by humans with whatever means.
But who knows what you've just said above? ..who knows that? ...and can that knower be seen? ..did you know that no 'human' has ever been seen? and here you are telling the forum that humans are seers....you seem confused? and this is not surprising because humans are not the seers. You are attempting to see something with the wrong I (eye)

If you want to talk about God's impossibilty you first have to know who knows this? ... are you prepared to talk about that?

The problem with debates about God ...is the absurd acquisition that there is such a 'thing' as a 'theist' in the first place. But that's just a 'belief'
A 'belief' is an acquisitional overlay upon reality ( a lie) which is all inclusive, all encompassing, all pervading, including the belief.

Why put an extra additional head on this? ....there is no 'other head' here to conflate Nondual reality.

There is no such 'thing' as a 'theist' in reality what-so-ever, except in this conception. Concepts have absolutely no reality or substance behind them. There is no claimer here.

And that you appear to be convinced there is only exists as a mental construction, a story your mind is hoepelessly lost in mistaking this story to be actual reality. In other words, there no thing here making up these stories about things as if they actually existed in and of themselves. You might as well be talking to a wall. Breaking through that wall will reveal the clarity that is reality ...before it is mentally interfered with.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:30 pm

You have no argument, sorry to inform you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:34 am
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.
Huh, how can there be an argument about what you have blatently admitted does not exist, why are you trying to argue the existence of something you have already convinced yourself does not exist...what's the point in that?...why are you looking for feedback confirmation of your own self disbelief unless you are not sure of that belief? .. afterall, not believing is still a belief. Are you being serious? Who are you trying to fool here?


You appear to be of a confused mind. I appear to be making you agitated which is strange since you seem so confident in your own assertive belief that there is no God, this smells of uncertaintly to me.

The only psychological problem here is your own blinded insistance that there is an actual ''believer'' to have a belief or disbelief in the first place.

No one has a belief. Beliefs have no knowable source. When you tell people they have a belief in something, you are practically telling them something you cannot possibly KNOW TO BE REAL OR TRUE.

There is no 'you' to argue with Nondual Truth. All you are doing is using a belief to fight off another belief, replacing one illusion with another illusion..it's the sickness of the human mind, you are not alone.



.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6013
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:56 am
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?
Lots of time. But again, I can't prove that to you, since you're not here. So you'll 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.
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 don't really understand why anyone would need to suppose that. it looks ad hominem, to me. What's necessary is that the statements themselves made by each participant are correct. That's all.
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.
Fair enough. I only recently discovered him myself, and am on my first reading of his work. But he seems to me to be doing the most serious work on philosophy of mind, and he certainly has a devastating dismantling of the idea of "emergentism."
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.
I know Korsgaard, of course. But I find Alan Wood is much better on Kant. Have you read any of his work?
I dare claim to be a near-expert on the following;
1. Kant
2. Buddhism
3. Islam
Are you in, or have you mostly lived in, an Islam-dominated country? I'm just curious. If you were, it would certainly explain why a rationally-based Theism or faith looks unlikely to you. Islam is, after all, nothing if not a self-declared "submission" religion. It certainly would explain why one would think Theism had necessarily to be less-than-rational.
Your views of Hinduism and Buddhism above is merely 5/10 at least until you have show more of what you know re Buddhism.
I wasn't trying to show off what I know. I'm not competing. I was pointing out that the anti-rationalism basic to Eastern mysticism in its various forms is not compatible with Kantian rationalism. That's all.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6013
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:38 am
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.
You have no authority of say they are the wrong terms.
I wasn't appealing to authority. I was just pointing out that your coinage is imprecise, and you'd do better by using the same terms that the lengthy theological discussion on it uses. There's a reason why those terms have been chosen, of course.
Where God is claimed to be 'immanent' where is God hiding within nature, as energy, quarks, God's particle or what?
Which Theistic system did you want to discuss? Because different ones take a different view of the answer to that.
What theists claim is God is there but cannot be seen by humans with whatever means.
Again, this would depend on which Theism you intend to refer to. It could be right about some, but it would be wrong about others.
When one believe in something that cannot be seen and act upon its command, it open the potential to evils [good included].
That is certainly true. But if it is, then the "evil" doesn't come from the system itself (since it refers to nothing) but from the heart of the one believing in it. For the system itself would then be merely a construct, the product of nothing but of the heart of mankind. Mankind itself would have to be, at least in part, evil.

Then the Atheist is faced with the question, "Why are people capable of evil?" And before that, "How do we even know that evil exists?" And there are no answers to these questions in Atheism. And you can see why I say the Theodicy Problem is far more vexed for the Atheist than for anyone.

So the secular position (which is methodologically agnostic, if not outright Atheistic) has no information on the answers to these questions.
This is same with a person who 'see' things but cannot be seen by others. Some will even act on the commands from such visions and hearings to kill others.
Yes, this happens, for sure. But also, other things happen: prison reform, women's rights, public education, medical missions, foreign aid...and so on, are all products of a different source of Theism.
Note Kant on the following;

Kant's overall argument is as follows;
  • 1. All transcendental ideas [only 3] are illusions.
    2. God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is an illusion
The premises above are backed by a set of complex arguments.
The 3 transcendental ideas are God, the Soul, the 100% Whole Universe.

If you have read the Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, then show me where I am wrong?
I wasn't arguing you were wrong about Kant, at least in this regard. (I think you're wrong about his compatibility with Buddhism, but not about this.) Rather, in this subject, I was arguing Kant himself was wrong about the truth. That's quite a different proposition.

I think the error there is a rather narrow and artificially stimulative definition of "transcendent." Kant may well have got that view from his Pietist upbringing, since Pietism emphasizes experience over facts. But the pietistic inclination is really a sub-theme or aspect of some Theisms, rather than the totality of Theistic doctrines; and pure Pietism is quite rare and difficult to sustain, since it eschews any empirical basis. That's why a complete and thoroughgoing Pietism is so uncommon, even today.

One would have to say, then, that Kant's view was reflective of a rather a radical minority position in Theism -- perhaps the only one with which Kant was thoroughly familiar, but still, not a good representation of the whole. This is, I think, the cause of his narrow definition of "transcendent." Based on his upbringing and his parents, he may well have thought that reason/faith was a strict either/or.

But if he did, he was wrong.

seeds
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by seeds » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am
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...

...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.
I’m sorry, but all you are doing is presenting strawman arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God could be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am
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.
I, as a bonafide theist (a Berkeleyanish Panentheist, to be precise) have already carefully considered your P2...
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
...and have exposed its flaw by clearly pointing out to you that the Creator of this universe does not have to live up to some kind of ideal form of “perfection” in order to exist and qualify for the title of “God.”

You, however, simply chose to ignore what I said and have continued to use your debunked premise as the primary reason for why God’s existence is impossible.

The absolute best conclusion that can be derived from your arguments is that theists believe in a wide range of nonsense with respect to God.

However, if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am
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?
I suggest that the main psychological impetus that drives the minds of most theists is the absolute absurdity in thinking that the unfathomable order laid-out before our senses is a product of serendipitous (chance) processes.**

Therefore, the belief in something extremely powerful and intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe is not a psychological “crutch” or any other such nonsense, but a simple default to plain old common sense.

**(For an example of what I am getting at in regards to the absurdity of “chance,” see this post - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943&start=45#p357784)
_______

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:52 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:21 am
What theists claim is God is there but cannot be seen by humans with whatever means.
But who knows what you've just said above? ..who knows that? ...and can that knower be seen? ..did you know that no 'human' has ever been seen? and here you are telling the forum that humans are seers....you seem confused? and this is not surprising because humans are not the seers. You are attempting to see something with the wrong I (eye)

If you want to talk about God's impossibilty you first have to know who knows this? ... are you prepared to talk about that?

The problem with debates about God ...is the absurd acquisition that there is such a 'thing' as a 'theist' in the first place. But that's just a 'belief'
A 'belief' is an acquisitional overlay upon reality ( a lie) which is all inclusive, all encompassing, all pervading, including the belief.

Why put an extra additional head on this? ....there is no 'other head' here to conflate Nondual reality.

There is no such 'thing' as a 'theist' in reality what-so-ever, except in this conception. Concepts have absolutely no reality or substance behind them. There is no claimer here.

And that you appear to be convinced there is only exists as a mental construction, a story your mind is hoepelessly lost in mistaking this story to be actual reality. In other words, there no thing here making up these stories about things as if they actually existed in and of themselves. You might as well be talking to a wall. Breaking through that wall will reveal the clarity that is reality ...before it is mentally interfered with.
Humans cannot see certain things but humans can think or hallucinate those things, e.g. God.

You obviously did not read my prior post to this reply of yours.
Note I quoted Kant,
Kant in CPR wrote:
The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397 - NKS
It is the human compulsion to reify an objective reality out of nothing that result in a belief in an illusory God as real.

You talk a lot but where is your proof either empirically, logically or philosophically.
My argument is your drive to get at 'something' as God [actually an illusion] is purely psychological.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:57 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:30 pm
You have no argument, sorry to inform you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:34 am
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.
Huh, how can there be an argument about what you have blatently admitted does not exist, why are you trying to argue the existence of something you have already convinced yourself does not exist...what's the point in that?...why are you looking for feedback confirmation of your own self disbelief unless you are not sure of that belief? .. afterall, not believing is still a belief. Are you being serious? Who are you trying to fool here?
No intention to insult but I have to use this analogy.

Note, a schizo will insist his hallucination is very real and will be act in response to what is hallucinate direct him to do.

We do not argue with a schizo but try explain to them their psychological conditions that they are objectifying something illusory as real.

Obviously theism is nothing to do with schizo, but the mechanics in the mind is the same in compelling a theism to objectify their 'god' [whatever that is] is something or real. Why theism is acceptable is because the majority of humans are into this natural emergence of illusion.

Note Ramanchandran the famous neuro-scientist,
“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”

― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human
Thus ordinary perception is one kind of mildest hallucination, while the idea of God is somewhere nearer to the other end nearer towards real schizo hallucinations.
You appear to be of a confused mind. I appear to be making you agitated which is strange since you seem so confident in your own assertive belief that there is no God, this smells of uncertaintly to me.

The only psychological problem here is your own blinded insistance that there is an actual ''believer'' to have a belief or disbelief in the first place.
Frankly I am struggling to get your point so that I can respond specifically and rationally.
No one has a belief. Beliefs have no knowable source. When you tell people they have a belief in something, you are practically telling them something you cannot possibly KNOW TO BE REAL OR TRUE.

There is no 'you' to argue with Nondual Truth. All you are doing is using a belief to fight off another belief, replacing one illusion with another illusion..it's the sickness of the human mind, you are not alone.
That's the point, the above is very confusing.
It may help if you can get or refer to someone who share your same views, either here or elsewhere to explain from a different perspective.

Kant will insist beliefs are based on experience and a priori knowledge he explained in very thorough details how beliefs came about then how beliefs are converted to knowledge.

Your point is you are trying to say something but it is not grounded at all.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am

seeds wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am
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...

...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.
I’m sorry, but all you are doing is presenting strawman arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God could be real.
I do not think so.
You have to explain why 'strawman.'
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am
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.
I, as a bonafide theist (a Berkeleyanish Panentheist, to be precise) have already carefully considered your P2...
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
...and have exposed its flaw by clearly pointing out to you that the Creator of this universe does not have to live up to some kind of ideal form of “perfection” in order to exist and qualify for the title of “God.”

You, however, simply chose to ignore what I said and have continued to use your debunked premise as the primary reason for why God’s existence is impossible.

The absolute best conclusion that can be derived from your arguments is that theists believe in a wide range of nonsense with respect to God.

However, if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.
Debunked?
I have presented my syllogism in the OP.
Obviously if there is something reasonable that question any of the premises, I will surely address it.

As far as I have known, I have countered all arguments against my premises and I have not conceded to any.
Tell me where if I have missed your counter to my P2. I will be very eager to counter your views.

Note my point is by default God has to be a perfect being, just like a drop of water by default will make its way to the ocean.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am
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?
I suggest that the main psychological impetus that drives the minds of most theists is the absolute absurdity in thinking that the unfathomable order laid-out before our senses is a product of serendipitous (chance) processes.**

Therefore, the belief in something extremely powerful and intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe is not a psychological “crutch” or any other such nonsense, but a simple default to plain old common sense.

**(For an example of what I am getting at in regards to the absurdity of “chance,” see this post - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943&start=45#p357784)
_______
Note there are tons of studies on why the propensity to believe in a God is psychological, i.e. existential psychology and the related fields.

My ace card which I do not have to pull out is, a theist cannot escape from putting aside his mind's involvement [i.e. psychological] on the question of God.
What we need to get into is to understand what are the detail processes [which most theists has not got into or try to escape from] that is going on in relation to the idea of God as generated from the mind.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:00 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:21 am
Where God is claimed to be 'immanent' where is God hiding within nature, as energy, quarks, God's particle or what?
Which Theistic system did you want to discuss? Because different ones take a different view of the answer to that.
What theists claim is God is there but cannot be seen by humans with whatever means.
Again, this would depend on which Theism you intend to refer to. It could be right about some, but it would be wrong about others.
Whichever, whether God is immanent and/or transcendent, the idea of God is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
When one believe in something that cannot be seen and act upon its command, it open the potential to evils [good included].
That is certainly true. But if it is, then the "evil" doesn't come from the system itself (since it refers to nothing) but from the heart of the one believing in it. For the system itself would then be merely a construct, the product of nothing but of the heart of mankind. Mankind itself would have to be, at least in part, evil.
As I had presented in another OP, a believer has into enter into a contract with his God where the terms of the contract is stipulated in the holy text[s] delivered by God via his prophet or messenger.
If the terms of the contract with God contain evil laden elements which all believers are expected to comply with and execute, then, such contractual acts which are evil are inherent in that theistic system and God.
Islam is an example of a religion and a God that is inherently evil.
Then the Atheist is faced with the question, "Why are people capable of evil?" And before that, "How do we even know that evil exists?" And there are no answers to these questions in Atheism. And you can see why I say the Theodicy Problem is far more vexed for the Atheist than for anyone.
As I had argued we need to establish grounds on what is good therefore its opposite 'evil'. Humanity need to work on this. This is the complex area we have not discussed and I have not justified. I'll will assume at this stage it can be done.

The question of whether evil exists is very secondary.
What is primary is the focus on all human acts that are good and evil.
Once we have established the grounding for good thus also 'evil' it is obvious why 'genocide' is evil.
Thus humanity should strive to prevent genocides and other identified evil acts.

We don't need a god for the above.
So the secular position (which is methodologically agnostic, if not outright Atheistic) has no information on the answers to these questions.
Why not?
I have stated humanity [secular] has to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that has absolute moral principles to guide the practical.
I have discussed this in reasonable details, re focus on the individual development, conscience, etc. and the neuro- approach.

Note Kant on the following;

Kant's overall argument is as follows;
  • 1. All transcendental ideas [only 3] are illusions.
    2. God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is an illusion
The premises above are backed by a set of complex arguments.
The 3 transcendental ideas are God, the Soul, the 100% Whole Universe.

If you have read the Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, then show me where I am wrong?
I wasn't arguing you were wrong about Kant, at least in this regard. (I think you're wrong about his compatibility with Buddhism, but not about this.) Rather, in this subject, I was arguing Kant himself was wrong about the truth. That's quite a different proposition.

I think the error there is a rather narrow and artificially stimulative definition of "transcendent." Kant may well have got that view from his Pietist upbringing, since Pietism emphasizes experience over facts. But the pietistic inclination is really a sub-theme or aspect of some Theisms, rather than the totality of Theistic doctrines; and pure Pietism is quite rare and difficult to sustain, since it eschews any empirical basis. That's why a complete and thoroughgoing Pietism is so uncommon, even today.

One would have to say, then, that Kant's view was reflective of a rather a radical minority position in Theism -- perhaps the only one with which Kant was thoroughly familiar, but still, not a good representation of the whole. This is, I think, the cause of his narrow definition of "transcendent." Based on his upbringing and his parents, he may well have thought that reason/faith was a strict either/or.

But if he did, he was wrong.
From your posting re Kant, I can see you only have superficial knowledge of Kant's philosophy.

Kant was brought up within protestant pietistic background culturally thus it is obvious he was influenced to some extent but main element of pietism did not extend to his later advance philosophy.
Kant was a long time rationalist until he was woken by Hume from is 'Dogmatic' slumber, i.e. his tight gripped on rationalism.
From the way Kant f...ked organized religion, it is clear he was not dogmatic with pietism.

Kant's thought arose from humanity's highest potential of reason and wisdom. That is why Kant is touted as the greatest [if not one of] philosopher [assumed Western] of ALL times.

There are only a few comparative philosophy article/book written on Kant and Buddhism. I agree with some of their views.
However, based on the reasonable effort I have put into both philosophies, I am confident based own research, Kantian philosophy is comparable in parallel to Buddhism in terms of core principles. I can write a book on this which will be something original.

Walker
Posts: 6817
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Walker » Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:36 am

Everything is possible. Conditions determine the manifestation. Not all conditions are known, or imaginable, although speculation is fun for thought.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6013
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:00 am
whether God is immanent and/or transcendent, the idea of God is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Well, you've got no argument to show that that is so. In fact, if what you are writing above is true, then by implication you are conceding that God exists. For unreal things cannot possess real qualities of being, whether we speak of immanence or transcendence.

We have to be careful with out own human nature. It's human nature to hold onto a bad explanation once we think it explains something to us, and not to relinquish it easily. In a way, this is good: for a person who changes her mind without trouble probably never had an idea worth holding. But at some point, when an old argument has manifested its faults, it is time to change. It's then that human nature makes us resist the change, even though it's right.

But I suspect you know that, too.
Islam is an example of a religion and a God that is inherently evil.
I can't argue with that. I've read the entire Koran (it's really a mess of a book, as anyone can see) and I've looked at biographies of Mohammed, even some composed by people who want to encourage Islam. And I think that the life of their "prophet" speaks for itself, in terms of moral awfulness. Add to that what the most earnest Muslims are doing today, and I think you've got a good argument for your case. There's a deep moral evil in Islam.
As I had argued we need to establish grounds on what is good therefore its opposite 'evil'.
This makes good sense.
The question of whether evil exists is very secondary.
Well, if good does, then it will exist too. But it will exist derivatively. That's why going looking for "the Good" makes most sense.
Thus humanity should strive to prevent genocides and other identified evil acts.
We don't need a god for the above.
Here's your problem: absent a God, how do we rationally justify any account of "good"? There's no agreement among people and cultures on what is ultimate "good," whether we think of "human flourishing," "promoting life," "increasing power," "educating minds," "being positive" (whatever that means) or whatever. No feature of a secular reality directs us more to one kind of "good" or away from any kind of "evil" more than another.

Unless you can try to suggest one, maybe. Hume thought that would obviously be impossible, and Nietzsche thought it would be a delusion, either way.
So the secular position (which is methodologically agnostic, if not outright Atheistic) has no information on the answers to these questions.
Why not?
Because there's no "ought" rationally derivable from a mere "is" claim.

For example, it may be the case that, say, orphans are starving in Syria. That's a fact. Fine. But what's the "ought" that goes along with that observation, from a secular perspective? Is it "...therefore, we ought to save them," or "therefore, we ought to be glad we're not Syrians"? Is it, "...therefore, we ought to invade Syria and save those people," or "...therefore, we ought to mind our own business"? Is it "...therefore, we owe them money," or "...therefore, we don't owe them anything"? Is it "...therefore, we ought to show compassion," or is it "...therefore, we should be glad that world overpopulation is being counteracted somewhat by orphan starvation"?

How would we know which it was, if it were anything? No feature in secular reality points out to us any moral direction from the bald fact that orphans are starving.
t is clear he was not dogmatic with pietism.
I didn't say he was; you misread my statement. I simply said that Pietism was his frame of reference for his ideas about the transcendent. But I also said that isn't the only, or the right, frame of reference for understanding transcendence. I think that's why Kant went wrong.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:52 am
Humans cannot see certain things but humans can think or hallucinate those things, e.g. God.
Do you not understand there is no such thing as a ''human'' that can do, think, or see anything? this idea is purely psychological, it's a fictional story told by no one.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:52 am
You obviously did not read my prior post to this reply of yours.
Only seekers read. I'm not a seeker, I'm a wayshower. I'm here to make the crooked staight, and to illuminate the darkness.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:52 am
It is the human compulsion to reify an objective reality out of nothing that result in a belief in an illusory God as real.
How does a human reify an objective reality when a human is the object reality made of purely psychological hallucinations... reifying phantoms humans out of nothing that result in a belief the illusory human phantom as real....the same applies for any conceptually known ''thing'' you know...no thing is doing this phenomena. Things can't do anything because things don't exist...things are known, by no thing.

Sorry, I can not assimilate with the idea that humans are the doers or the knowers. There is no thing to prove they are the doers or knowers. Do you not see the flaw in your logic when you assume a human can turn God into a concrete thing. Human is a concept too.. who or what knows the concept?...and if like you say, a concept is just a concrete thing reifyied, who is reifying this? ...does the concrete thing do the reifying? does the object you said cannot be turned into a concrete thing do the reifying? ..does this even make sense to you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:52 am
You talk a lot but where is your proof either empirically, logically or philosophically.
Same place you get yours from, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

You go first...please show the knower?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:52 am
My argument is your drive to get at 'something' as God [actually an illusion] is purely psychological.
I'm not interested in arguing. I'm not the one trying to get something here. I already get it..in that there is nothing to get, in that it's already got me.

You are the one who is trying to get something by demanding proof that what you say is truth...I'm here to talk real truths, not have them prooved or agreed with. Your argument is pointless unless you know who that 'something' is who is talking about illusions? My argument is your drive to get at 'something' as human [actually an illusion] is purely psychological.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:45 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:00 am
whether God is immanent and/or transcendent, the idea of God is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Well, you've got no argument to show that that is so. In fact, if what you are writing above is true, then by implication you are conceding that God exists. For unreal things cannot possess real qualities of being, whether we speak of immanence or transcendence.
Note I have presented my arguments in this thread.

If a hallucinating schizo insist X is 'real', does it imply the hallucinated-X is real?
I have shown the idea of God results in an illusory God. [re the argument from Kant].
It is the same for the ordinary theist who insist God is 'real' when God is illusory. As such there is no room for any implication God is real.
In addition, there has never been any proofs - since the idea of God emerged within human consciousness - to justify God is real.
We have to be careful with out own human nature. It's human nature to hold onto a bad explanation once we think it explains something to us, and not to relinquish it easily. In a way, this is good: for a person who changes her mind without trouble probably never had an idea worth holding. But at some point, when an old argument has manifested its faults, it is time to change. It's then that human nature makes us resist the change, even though it's right.

But I suspect you know that, too.
Point here is theists had been holding on to a bad argument for thousands of years and has resisted change driven by a necessary inherent human nature of resistance. But most theist are unable to change even their external environment and circumstances has changed.

What I have introduced is a new very recent justified argument to counter the old argument.
Islam is an example of a religion and a God that is inherently evil.
I can't argue with that. I've read the entire Koran (it's really a mess of a book, as anyone can see) and I've looked at biographies of Mohammed, even some composed by people who want to encourage Islam. And I think that the life of their "prophet" speaks for itself, in terms of moral awfulness. Add to that what the most earnest Muslims are doing today, and I think you've got a good argument for your case. There's a deep moral evil in Islam.
Agree.
Christianity and Islam believe in the same type of monotheistic God which I have proven God is illusory and not real. Because it is illusory as driven fundamentally by primal psychological motives, there is a tendency for the idea of God to be abused towards evil. This is VERY glaring in Islam but there are also subtle elements of evil [in terms of negatives] from Christianity and its rigid theism [illusory].

For example the Christianity's rigid grasp to the idea of creationism is a hindrance to intellectual progress within humanity. It is putting brakes on the existing trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge. Christianity also has many other hardcore resistance to change for the better.
Thus humanity should strive to prevent genocides and other identified evil acts.
We don't need a god for the above.
Here's your problem: absent a God, how do we rationally justify any account of "good"? There's no agreement among people and cultures on what is ultimate "good," whether we think of "human flourishing," "promoting life," "increasing power," "educating minds," "being positive" (whatever that means) or whatever. No feature of a secular reality directs us more to one kind of "good" or away from any kind of "evil" more than another.

Unless you can try to suggest one, maybe. Hume thought that would obviously be impossible, and Nietzsche thought it would be a delusion, either way.
That is why I am suggesting humanity must strive to increase the Morality Quotient [MQ] of the average human to imbue them with the capacity [theory and practical] to be grounded on the idea of absolute "good".
This is like making a person understand in theory on how to run 100 meters in 9.8 seconds and ensuring they are able to do that in practice consistently.
How?
I am optimistic it [establishing the theoretical absolute good, increasing the MQ] is possible given the current positive trends.
I have suggested the reference to Kantian Morality plus all other relevant faculties of knowledge.
So the secular position (which is methodologically agnostic, if not outright Atheistic) has no information on the answers to these questions.
Why not?
Because there's no "ought" rationally derivable from a mere "is" claim.

For example, it may be the case that, say, orphans are starving in Syria. That's a fact. Fine. But what's the "ought" that goes along with that observation, from a secular perspective? Is it "...therefore, we ought to save them," or "therefore, we ought to be glad we're not Syrians"? Is it, "...therefore, we ought to invade Syria and save those people," or "...therefore, we ought to mind our own business"? Is it "...therefore, we owe them money," or "...therefore, we don't owe them anything"? Is it "...therefore, we ought to show compassion," or is it "...therefore, we should be glad that world overpopulation is being counteracted somewhat by orphan starvation"?

How would we know which it was, if it were anything? No feature in secular reality points out to us any moral direction from the bald fact that orphans are starving.
Note my explanation above of how to establish what is absolutely 'good' and thus 'evil' as a Guide.

In the case of your Syria example, the solution would be this;
  • What is absolute good [as justified and established from "is" to "ought"] is,
    -there ought to be no war
    -there ought to be no killing of another human
    -there ought to be no hunger
    -there ought to be no evil of any type.
If we compare the Syria conditions, there are is the reality [is] of wars, killings, hunger.
The establishment of a fixed ought [as a guide] when compared the current 'is' conditions enable humanity to compute a gap between what is "ought" and "is." This is what I would call the "Moral Gap."

In the present conditions we will do the best of our ability to alleviate and mitigate sufferings and strive to stop the war and its related evil acts.

What is critical here is the presence of the Moral Gap, say between no wars and presence of wars.
In the presence of the Moral Gap, humanity must find ways to prevent wars from ever happening again.
Without the Moral Gap staring at us, people will be indifferent without a central focus to do anything holistically.

The Moral Gap [re wars or whatever evil] will enable humanity to be focused and determine.
Enforcement never works effectively but this Moral Gap and human determination will eventually drive humanity to seek preventive solutions [fool proof] within the neurons and their connectivity in the brain, e.g. and analogically how to get the average or most humans to run 100 meters in 9.8 seconds i.e. increasing the MQ to >300% within the next 50, 75 or ASAP.

I am optimistic of the above based on the positive trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:56 am

Are you willing to slow down with all the explaining, the words which are just thoughts are obscuring what we are trying to understand. Understanding of what we are trying to understand can be done within the silence of just pure thoughtless being. You might aswell just flush all those words down the toilet for the good they are going to do.

So lets keep it simple.

Lets start with this..

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:44 am
In addition, there has never been any proofs - since the idea of God emerged within human consciousness - to justify God is real.
Where is the proof that conciousness is human?

Try and give an answer that can be written on a postage stamp, and understood by a child.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests