God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Justintruth wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
  • 1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection
1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
The problem is you have to prove that something that is impossible to be empirical is impossible to be real else you have:

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

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

Science is the the most objective knowledge of reality [say 90% confidence level] and the rest of 9.99% will be covered by critical thinking and wisdom [the essence of philosophy].
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by nothing »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
  • 1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection
1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
There is another approach to undermine any/all belief-based gods: that in any conceivable rivalry context of-and-bewteen so-called good and evil, god must have a counter-part (ie. satan). Because the relationship between them is antithetical (ie. opposites of one another) if either has a definite fixed property/characteristic, it can be used to infer the (inverse of the) same property/characteristic of the other. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point is: if satan requires belief, and god is the opposite of satan, how can god also require belief? It's a/the contradiction that begs a trial of belief-in-and-of-itself as being a fixed characteristic of any/all deception as it ever could/would relate to satan (so-called) and/or the confusion of good and evil (so-called) without even the need to define them. It takes a believer to believe evil is good, just as it does to believe war is peace, infidelity is fidelity etc. thus in what practical universe would god demand the same thing satan relies on? It's thus absolutely ignorant to "believe" in an all-knowing god such as the monotheistic monstrosity of Abrahamism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

nothing wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
  • 1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection
1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
There is another approach to undermine any/all belief-based gods: that in any conceivable rivalry context of-and-bewteen so-called good and evil, god must have a counter-part (ie. satan). Because the relationship between them is antithetical (ie. opposites of one another) if either has a definite fixed property/characteristic, it can be used to infer the (inverse of the) same property/characteristic of the other. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Btw, suggest you raise your post as an OP as it may trigger some theists to think about their God and Satan.
Age
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:35 am
nothing wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
  • 1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection
1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
There is another approach to undermine any/all belief-based gods: that in any conceivable rivalry context of-and-bewteen so-called good and evil, god must have a counter-part (ie. satan). Because the relationship between them is antithetical (ie. opposites of one another) if either has a definite fixed property/characteristic, it can be used to infer the (inverse of the) same property/characteristic of the other. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Btw, suggest you raise your post as an OP as it may trigger some theists to think about their God and Satan.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

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

We exist, we create, we play with DNA, of course on a much smaller scale. What shall we be able to do in the future. If we can possibly outlive ourselves that is? Could we be the creators of a species? In essence, their god?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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

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

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

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

But what is ontological cannot be empirically and philosophically real.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

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

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

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


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

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

But what is ontological cannot be empirically and philosophically real.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I don't think you have otherwise you would have not replied with doubts on my above proposition.
tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by tapaticmadness »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:59 am Despite God as only an idea [ideal entity] is an impossibility to be real, theists will natural 'reason' God to be 'real' based on self-deception due to some subliminal compulsion to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

My point is humanity must deal with the real existential crisis psychologically i.e. the idea of God [an impossibility] rather than deny and suppress it.

Since the idea of God emerged into human consciousness as a balm/crutch to relieve the existential Angst, the pros of theism has outweigh its cons [the terrible evil deeds as inspired by the supposedly texts from a 'believed-to-be-real' God to be acted upon].
However, the trend currently is the cons of theism are slowly outweighing the pros [psychological relief from Angst], thus we need to address the reality behind theism and deal with the related psychological root causes.
This is absurd. I am not a theist because I am trying to deal with some existential crisis. I am a theist because many years ago I fell in love/lust with boys at Summer church camp and Jesus became for me the very form of what I desired. Now if you want to say that love/lust always involves an existential crisis, then I might agree with you, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. BTW I think a very good case can be made that the earliest Israelite worship of God was a Phallic Cult, a Dionysian rave, ecstatic wildness, trembling shamanism.

Jalal al-Din Rumi
translated by Arberry
18.
Go forth, my comrades, draw along our beloved, at last bring to me the fugitive idol; with sweet melodies and golden pretexts draw to the house that moon sweet of presence. And if he promises, "I will come in another moment," all his promises are but cunning to beguile you. He possesses a flaming breath, by enchantment and wizardry knotting the water and tying up the air. When in blessedness and joy my darling enters, sit you down and behold the marvels of God! When his beauty shines forth, what shall be the beauty of the comely ones? For his sun-bright face extinguishes all lamps. Go, fleet-paced heart, to Yemen, to my heart's beloved, convey my greetings and service to that ruby beyond price.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

tapaticmadness wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:59 am Despite God as only an idea [ideal entity] is an impossibility to be real, theists will natural 'reason' God to be 'real' based on self-deception due to some subliminal compulsion to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

My point is humanity must deal with the real existential crisis psychologically i.e. the idea of God [an impossibility] rather than deny and suppress it.

Since the idea of God emerged into human consciousness as a balm/crutch to relieve the existential Angst, the pros of theism has outweigh its cons [the terrible evil deeds as inspired by the supposedly texts from a 'believed-to-be-real' God to be acted upon].
However, the trend currently is the cons of theism are slowly outweighing the pros [psychological relief from Angst], thus we need to address the reality behind theism and deal with the related psychological root causes.
This is absurd. I am not a theist because I am trying to deal with some existential crisis. I am a theist because many years ago I fell in love/lust with boys at Summer church camp and Jesus became for me the very form of what I desired. Now if you want to say that love/lust always involves an existential crisis, then I might agree with you, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. BTW I think a very good case can be made that the earliest Israelite worship of God was a Phallic Cult, a Dionysian rave, ecstatic wildness, trembling shamanism.

Jalal al-Din Rumi
translated by Arberry
18.
Go forth, my comrades, draw along our beloved, at last bring to me the fugitive idol; with sweet melodies and golden pretexts draw to the house that moon sweet of presence. And if he promises, "I will come in another moment," all his promises are but cunning to beguile you. He possesses a flaming breath, by enchantment and wizardry knotting the water and tying up the air. When in blessedness and joy my darling enters, sit you down and behold the marvels of God! When his beauty shines forth, what shall be the beauty of the comely ones? For his sun-bright face extinguishes all lamps. Go, fleet-paced heart, to Yemen, to my heart's beloved, convey my greetings and service to that ruby beyond price.
You are right, I am not linking love and lust to the existential crisis in the OP.

I have written somewhere there are exceptions to one claiming to be a theist.
For example a non-theistic spouse may decide to be a theist to please his theistic partner. There are other reasons why a person becomes a 'theist' for reasons of convenience, e.g. cultural, political, customs, etc.
These are the pseudo-theists.

A genuine theists would believe in a God as driven by the inherent existential crisis in various degrees. The Abrahamic believers has the highest degree while the pantheist would have a lower degree.
The Abrahamic believer will consciously enter into a contract to establish a personal relationship with God to be assured of God's promise of salvation and eternal life.

Since your reason for being a theist is merely driven by a love/lust for boys, that would not be likely be driven strongly by an existential crisis, unless there are other evidence to justify it.
In this case, you are likely to be a pseudo-theist.
tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by tapaticmadness »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:13 am
Since your reason for being a theist is merely driven by a love/lust for boys, that would not be likely be driven strongly by an existential crisis, unless there are other evidence to justify it.
In this case, you are likely to be a pseudo-theist.
Oh WIOW!!! I am a pseudo-theist. At least according to your dictionary definition of theist. I suppose you haven't taken into account that almost all mystical literature written by males in all religions has always been homoerotic. I would like to direct you to the writings of Michel Foucault. He speaks at length about how what used to be God-talk and religious speech has now come under the "care" of clinical psychiatry. You yourself interpret religion clinically. You seem to have a psychological diagnosis for these deluded beings. Foucault lays out how that clinical talk is a power-play by society to control these unruly elements. Sorry, I'm not impressed by scientific jargon. I will not confess by sins, oops my illness, to the psychiatrist/priest. I know that he promises that I will be cured and I will feel better. Society will just have to put up with me. I think today's clinic is just pseudo-religion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

tapaticmadness wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:13 am
Since your reason for being a theist is merely driven by a love/lust for boys, that would not be likely be driven strongly by an existential crisis, unless there are other evidence to justify it.
In this case, you are likely to be a pseudo-theist.
Oh WIOW!!! I am a pseudo-theist. At least according to your dictionary definition of theist. I suppose you haven't taken into account that almost all mystical literature written by males in all religions has always been homoerotic. I would like to direct you to the writings of Michel Foucault. He speaks at length about how what used to be God-talk and religious speech has now come under the "care" of clinical psychiatry. You yourself interpret religion clinically. You seem to have a psychological diagnosis for these deluded beings. Foucault lays out how that clinical talk is a power-play by society to control these unruly elements. Sorry, I'm not impressed by scientific jargon. I will not confess by sins, oops my illness, to the psychiatrist/priest. I know that he promises that I will be cured and I will feel better. Society will just have to put up with me. I think today's clinic is just pseudo-religion.
You come across this?

Inside The Life Of A 'Virtuous' Paedophile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Fx6P7d21o

The young paedophiles who say they don’t abuse children
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41213657

Hopefully you are one of them.
tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by tapaticmadness »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:55 am
tapaticmadness wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:13 am
Since your reason for being a theist is merely driven by a love/lust for boys, that would not be likely be driven strongly by an existential crisis, unless there are other evidence to justify it.
In this case, you are likely to be a pseudo-theist.
Oh WIOW!!! I am a pseudo-theist. At least according to your dictionary definition of theist. I suppose you haven't taken into account that almost all mystical literature written by males in all religions has always been homoerotic. I would like to direct you to the writings of Michel Foucault. He speaks at length about how what used to be God-talk and religious speech has now come under the "care" of clinical psychiatry. You yourself interpret religion clinically. You seem to have a psychological diagnosis for these deluded beings. Foucault lays out how that clinical talk is a power-play by society to control these unruly elements. Sorry, I'm not impressed by scientific jargon. I will not confess by sins, oops my illness, to the psychiatrist/priest. I know that he promises that I will be cured and I will feel better. Society will just have to put up with me. I think today's clinic is just pseudo-religion.
You come across this?

Inside The Life Of A 'Virtuous' Paedophile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Fx6P7d21o

The young paedophiles who say they don’t abuse children
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41213657

Hopefully you are one of them.
Actually I am not attracted to young boys. I am attracted to what are called twinks. That said, only a materialist like you would think of actual, material boys. I am thoroughly religious. The Boy is a Supernatural being, a god, something you haven't a clue about. Here in Hinduland people worship Krishna who is an eternal fifteen years old. Likewise Jesus in his early depictions was the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4o1dc41r28
tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by tapaticmadness »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:55 am
You come across this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_hztHJCM4&t=160s

https://www.dropbox.com/s/as4olyehc4d5q ... s.pdf?dl=0

You don't seem like a guy who is much into literature and art, so I'm sending you these. You seem more like a goody goody clinical police state type. Do you work for the CIA?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

My argument from the OP,
viewtopic.php?p=367812#p367812
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.
Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
Post Reply