God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 6904
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:41 pm Ah. So you had not only a meaning for the word "God" that you chose, but you were being "exact"?

If I believe you, then you weren't really in doubt about the meaning of the word all along. I have no idea why you expect that anyone else must needs be.
I didn't choose it. I am a computer - I have no free will.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10879
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:41 pm Ah. So you had not only a meaning for the word "God" that you chose, but you were being "exact"?

If I believe you, then you weren't really in doubt about the meaning of the word all along. I have no idea why you expect that anyone else must needs be.
I didn't choose it. I am a computer - I have no free will.
Then you didn't understand it at all. Computers don't "understand." They just run their programming.
Skepdick
Posts: 6904
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:50 pm Then you didn't understand it at all. Computers don't "understand." They just run their programming.
Do you understand what it means to understand?

I doubt it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10879
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:50 pm Then you didn't understand it at all. Computers don't "understand." They just run their programming.
Do you understand what it means to understand?

I doubt it.
If one is a computer, one not only doesn't "understand." One doesn't "doubt" either.

Was there a point to this?
Skepdick
Posts: 6904
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 8:04 pm If one is a computer, one not only doesn't "understand." One doesn't "doubt" either.
I' haven't seen much doubt from you on the God issue.

I guess you must be a computer.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 1:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:31 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 24, 2020 1:15 pm
You need to get out more.

What's "common" is that 96% of the world's population doesn't believe that. Nevertheless, a belief isn't right simply because of the number of people who believe it. But 4%? I don't think you have a justification for calling that "common."
It common knowledge within all non-theists.
You mean with the 4% of people on planet earth who want to imagine they know something they don't actually know? Yep, it's "common" to them, I suppose. I'm not sure that wins you any point.
You got your facts wrong!

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations
14% of the world population are Secular[a]/Nonreligious[_b]/Agnostic/Atheist and
6% are Buddhist where the core of Buddhism is non theistic.
That is 20% in total of the 7.8 billion of people on Earth at present.
That is 1,560,000,000 non-theists which is a VERY significant quantum.

What is common to 1.56 billion non-theists is thus a relevant point.
who want to imagine they know something they don't actually know?
It is not that they 'know' something.
It is that the non-theists understand the theists' belief 'God exist' is irrational and out of fears.

Read the below carefully, it is also linked to subliminal fears of the existential crisis I mentioned,
Do Buddhist believe in god?

No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear.
The Buddha says:
  • "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
    sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him.
Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.

To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.
You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.
All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change.
He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
I'm familiar with that anthology, and in fact have read a great many Atheist essays and treatises -- not merely the "lightweights," but the alleged "greats" like Nietzsche, Hume, Marx and Freud, and the more modern ones, like Mackie, Wielenberg and Buckley. So I'm going to offer you a good read too -- it's short, it's good-natured, it's readable, and even some Atheists have read it with enjoyment. It's called "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist," by Andy Bannister.
Theists had this very sensitive and aggressive defensive mechanism to secure their belief in God to avoid falling into the bottomless pit of existential fears.
Thus whatever you read of non-theism, no matter of what greatness from thoughts of non-theists, your defense mechanism will instantly put up a thick wall of defense, resistance and confirmation bias to reject whatever they wrote. As a theist you have to, else hell will break loose within you.

Have you read of the terrible 'cold turkey' theists had to suffer when they turned from theists to be non-theists.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue May 26, 2020 6:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 1:14 pm I'm familiar with that anthology, and in fact have read a great many Atheist essays and treatises -- not merely the "lightweights," but the alleged "greats" like Nietzsche, Hume, Marx and Freud, and the more modern ones, like Mackie, Wielenberg and Buckley. So I'm going to offer you a good read too -- it's short, it's good-natured, it's readable, and even some Atheists have read it with enjoyment. It's called "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist," by Andy Bannister.
Do you have a link to download the full book.

I managed to download a reference with Chapter One and another giving a summary of each argument.

Generally Andy Bannister approach [while attempting to be humorous] is essentially very immature and of no substance to undermine the views of non-theists.

In Chapter One, Bannister merely attack the separate phrases within the Slogan [related to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.],
There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life
instead of the whole argument provided by Dawkins in his book The God Delusion.

Bannister obviously did not read The God Delusion seriously else he would not have made the following mistake.
For atheists like Richard Dawkins, God does not exist, right?
"The Atheist Who Didn't Exist," page 17
Richard Dawkins is not a pure atheist but an agnostic, i.e. he is a 1/7th theist as he distinctively explained his position in his book.
This is why Dawkins made the reservation;
There’s Probably No God i.e. 6/7th confidence there is no God.


Here is another of his silly and superficial counter argument;
Chapter 2 The Scandinavian Sceptic (or: Why Atheism Really is a Belief System)
The argument goes this way: atheism is a disbelief in God, and therefore one does not need to give reasons for it. The idea lying behind this is that atheism is purely negative, the mere absence of belief, and it is only positive beliefs for which we need to provide reasons.
So is atheism purely the absence of belief, a wholly negative claim? Well,
certainly many atheists seem to think so.
For example, listen to the late New Atheist Christopher Hitchens: Our belief is not a belief. [Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, London: Atlantic Books, 2007, p. 5.]

The first problem is that the statement “Atheism is just non-belief in God”
proves too much. What do I mean?
Well, if this claim is true, consider what it entails.
It would mean, for instance, that my cat is an atheist, because she does not believe in God.
Likewise potatoes, the colour green, Richard Dawkins’s left foot, and small rocks are all atheists because they, too, do not possess a belief in a deity of any kind.
The above is very immature and silly to critique merely one statement from Hitchen and ran with it into silliness.
Bannister should have read Hitchens' book and understood [not necessary agree] with Hitchens' full views and counter Hitchens views from a total basis rather than from a cherry-picked statement.

I suggest you don't recommend such books, I prefer the those that are intended to be more serious arguments.
In any case, to me God is an illusion and an impossibility to exists as real, thus whatever argument for God is a non-starter in terms of reality.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10879
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 5:47 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 1:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 7:31 am
It common knowledge within all non-theists.
You mean with the 4% of people on planet earth who want to imagine they know something they don't actually know? Yep, it's "common" to them, I suppose. I'm not sure that wins you any point.
You got your facts wrong!
No. The CIA Fact Book. Not just some "wiki." An actual intelligence organization.

By the way, do you know what a "wiki" is? Before you trust one, you should find out.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10879
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:36 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 1:14 pm I'm familiar with that anthology, and in fact have read a great many Atheist essays and treatises -- not merely the "lightweights," but the alleged "greats" like Nietzsche, Hume, Marx and Freud, and the more modern ones, like Mackie, Wielenberg and Buckley. So I'm going to offer you a good read too -- it's short, it's good-natured, it's readable, and even some Atheists have read it with enjoyment. It's called "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist," by Andy Bannister.
Do you have a link to download the full book.
I managed to download a reference with Chapter One and another giving a summary of each argument.
You should read the book. Summaries are unreliable. If you can't invest a few dollars, quid or shekels or drachma in buying a book, then I have no solutions for you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 5:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 5:47 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 1:14 pm
You mean with the 4% of people on planet earth who want to imagine they know something they don't actually know? Yep, it's "common" to them, I suppose. I'm not sure that wins you any point.
You got your facts wrong!
No. The CIA Fact Book. Not just some "wiki." An actual intelligence organization.

By the way, do you know what a "wiki" is? Before you trust one, you should find out.
The CIA Fact Book? Where?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 5:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:36 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 1:14 pm I'm familiar with that anthology, and in fact have read a great many Atheist essays and treatises -- not merely the "lightweights," but the alleged "greats" like Nietzsche, Hume, Marx and Freud, and the more modern ones, like Mackie, Wielenberg and Buckley. So I'm going to offer you a good read too -- it's short, it's good-natured, it's readable, and even some Atheists have read it with enjoyment. It's called "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist," by Andy Bannister.
Do you have a link to download the full book.
I managed to download a reference with Chapter One and another giving a summary of each argument.
You should read the book. Summaries are unreliable. If you can't invest a few dollars, quid or shekels or drachma in buying a book, then I have no solutions for you.
That is very dumb and financially unwise. Why should I waste $$ on a stupid book like that one, i.e. from chapter 2.
The first problem is that the statement “Atheism is just non-belief in God”
proves too much. What do I mean?
Well, if this claim is true, consider what it entails.
It would mean, for instance, that my cat is an atheist, because she does not believe in God.
Likewise potatoes, the colour green, Richard Dawkins’s left foot, and small rocks are all atheists because they, too, do not possess a belief in a deity of any kind.
The rest of the book is along the same stupid theme.

You are lucky I had shown some interest to your recommendations and manage to read some parts of it which exposed the stupidity there in.

To acknowledge solutions from me, are you sure you will buy whatever book I recommend to you?
I can refer you to 100 and 1000 book relevant to the point, will you buy them?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10879
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 5:09 am That is very dumb and financially unwise....
I'm feeling pretty bored with this conversation, and I'm here for interesting ones. This just isn't going anywhere...so I am.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

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?
Absolute perfection can be seen within the continuity of change as an absolute truth. Perpetual change results in perpetual relative perfection thus a continuity of perfection as absolutely true.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:27 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?
Absolute perfection can be seen within the continuity of change as an absolute truth. Perpetual change results in perpetual relative perfection thus a continuity of perfection as absolutely true.
It can be regarded absolute true within perpetual relative perfection, but such a truth cannot be an absolutely-absolute truth, since one of your premise included
relative.'

How can 'change' so claimed to be the only constant, be perfectly-absolute, i.e. perfectly and totally unconditional when 'change' is conditioned upon 'time' and 'space'.

Time and space is conditioned within the human system, thus conditional.

So any thing to do with 'change' cannot be absolute perfection, i.e. a thing-in-itself that is totally unconditional.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:42 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:27 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?
Absolute perfection can be seen within the continuity of change as an absolute truth. Perpetual change results in perpetual relative perfection thus a continuity of perfection as absolutely true.
It can be regarded absolute true within perpetual relative perfection, but such a truth cannot be an absolutely-absolute truth, since one of your premise included
relative.'

How can 'change' so claimed to be the only constant, be perfectly-absolute, i.e. perfectly and totally unconditional when 'change' is conditioned upon 'time' and 'space'.

Time and space is conditioned within the human system, thus conditional.

So any thing to do with 'change' cannot be absolute perfection, i.e. a thing-in-itself that is totally unconditional.
All is relative and based upon condition is an absolute truth as it is not subject to condition.


Change is perpetual. Change is not limited to time and space and exists through concepts as well.
Change changes itself, as being changes being, thus is a self-referential loop whose only condition is itself . The continual changing of phenomenon mandates a continuity of relative perfection, thus with absolute continuity of relativism comes an absolute continuity of perfection. Perfection, as a phenomena, is continual and as continual exists through grades but is not limited to being changed.

All being existing through being necessitates being as absolute.
Post Reply