God is an Impossibility

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why God should be absolute? Why absolute is unreachable?

I hope you understand the dreaded fears of a threat of eternal Hell for many theists?

Since the emergence of theism as a salvation to eternal life to avoid Hellfire, theists has to defend their stance from continual criticisms either from theists or non-theists.
Any admission of fallibility of their God will trigger the dreaded fears and insecurities.

As such, when others condemned their god as inferior, [e.g. Muslims will claim the Christian God is inferior and vice-versa] the defenders will have to come up with a one-up claim to counter their God is the greatest.

For example, theist-A could claim the God of theist-B is so inferior that theist-A's more superior could force theist-B's God to eat shit, or something degrading, etc.
Since no theists will admit their God to be inferior they will continue to counter continually with one-up arguments to avoid the trigger of fears and insecurities in them.

Somehow the one-upping will have to end with the limit of their knowledge.
Then they will naturally end up with the idea of an absolute ontological God.

Thinking theists will then claim their absolute ontological God as,
"a being than which no greater can be conceived" St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.
When both claim such an ontological God, they are both secured from anyone downgrading their God.

But an absolute ontological God is obviously an impossibility to be real.
Thus theists are cornered with no where to go;
-if they claim a non-ontological god, their god could be forced to eat shit by another superior god,
-if they claim an absolute ontological God, it is clearly impossible to be real.

The fact is the idea of God is merely a psychological derivative.
Resolving the psychological root causes will alleviate the burden to believe in an illusory god.
This is what Buddhism [and other non-theistic religions] has been doing since > 2500 years ago.

[Age]

Why God should be absolute? Why absolute is unreachable?

I hope you understand the dreaded fears of a threat of eternal Hell for many theists?

Since the emergence of theism as a salvation to eternal life to avoid Hellfire, theists has to defend their stance from continual criticisms either from theists or non-theists.
Any admission of fallibility of their God will trigger the dreaded fears and insecurities.

As such, when others condemned their god as inferior, [e.g. Muslims will claim the Christian God is inferior and vice-versa] the defenders will have to come up with a one-up claim to counter their God is the greatest.

For example, theist-A could claim the God of theist-B is so inferior that theist-A's more superior could force theist-B's God to eat shit, or something degrading, etc.
Since no theists will admit their God to be inferior they will continue to counter continually with one-up arguments to avoid the trigger of fears and insecurities in them.

Somehow the one-upping will have to end with the limit of their knowledge.
Then they will naturally end up with the idea of an absolute ontological God.

Thinking theists will then claim their absolute ontological God as,
"a being than which no greater can be conceived" St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.
When both claim such an ontological God, they are both secured from anyone downgrading their God.

But an absolute ontological God is obviously an impossibility to be real.
Thus theists are cornered with no where to go;
-if they claim a non-ontological god, their god could be forced to eat shit by another superior god,
-if they claim an absolute ontological God, it is clearly impossible to be real.

The fact is the idea of God is merely a psychological derivative.
Resolving the psychological root causes will alleviate the burden to believe in an illusory god.
This is what Buddhism [and other non-theistic religions] has been doing since > 2500 years ago.

You were asked, Why absolute is unreachable? You have NOT answered this question YET.

Just saying, "an absolute God is clearly impossible to be real", or "an absolute God is obviously an impossibility to be real", does NOT answer the clarifying question posed to you. All you are doing here is just expressing what you BELIEVE is true and real. Which, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT necessarily have ANY bearing AT ALL on what Is ACTUALLY True AND REAL.

If you want to start a thread here, and CLAIM some things are true, then I suggest you prepare "yourself" for ALL challenges BEFORE you express your BELEIFS or CLAIMS..

[Iwannaplato]

I hope you understand the dreaded fears of a threat of eternal Hell for many theists?

And yet the motivation VA attributes religious belief is to comfort fear. Yet oddly some theist came up with something worse than death while trying to soothe themselves and others. The promise that someone will beg to be killed under torture is not just psyching someone out. They will and many will choose death rather than go on with really rather mundane pain in the face of disease, being a social outcast, etc. Hell, of course, having supernatural powers creating the torture is worse than what human torturers and even nature can manage. Why would they invent something scarier than death if religions purpose is to soothe?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

One point I noted re Kant [mentioned] is;

Kant argued 'existence' or exists is not a predicate.
Realistically, the general format is 'Subject<->Predicate'

"Exists" is merely "is" which is a copula that joint [complement] the subject with its predicates.

If 'nothing exists' i.e. "nothing [subject] - exists [is] - ??? [predicate] " where is the predicate?
This is why the context [as predicate] is critical for the statement to make sense.

A predicate is always conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or FSK [ F & S of Knowledge]. e.g.

Water [subject] exists as H20 [predicated on the Science-Chemistry FSR]
An apple exists as a fruit [predicated on the Science-Biology FSR or FSK.

The FSR and FSK are ultimately predicated unavoidably upon the human conditions.

This is why the claim,

"God exists" is not realistic because there is no predicate.
When the predicate for God is taken into account, it is impossible for God to be real.

God is Impossible to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I find Seeds' objection to your premise in that other thread, linked above, a thought provoking one.

What is so thought provoking about Seed's objection?

There are probably thousands of gods [re Greeks, Chinese, Hindus, etc. God-of this or that] out there which are not claimed to be perfect, not omnipotent, or omni-whatever, some gods are claimed to be devil-like, full of shit, etc.
If Seed or any one wants to put their God is any of the above imperfect category, then, my argument do not apply to them.

However in general, the god of theists [80% of humans] by default are claimed to be perfect, supreme, an entity no greater can be conceived.

Whether or not there is a God, hinges on our definition of what God is? So far, some of the more convincing proofs I've seen of the existence of God have been along the lines of our belief that the universe had to have a beginning or an intelligent creator, that the idea of complexity and consciousness "accidentally" sprouting up out of inanimate space dust and atomic particles, seems incredibly counterintuitive to us.

I suppose it's possible that such is the case for whatever humanly inexplicable reason, however, something about the idea of consciousness just sprouting up out of nothing just doesn't sit well. Beyond that we have only speculation and conjecture: for example, "God is benevolent" or "omniscient" or an "angry and jealous God" resembling a deified Archie Bunker in the sky.

I'd say God serves at least 3 fundamental purposes to the human mind:

1. Origin of causality: It explains the origins of everything. Of course it also may beg the question of where did God come from.

2. Supreme Justice: It reconciles human experience giving us a sense that there is supreme justice in the world, making it conducive to the forming of more complex social interaction among humans. If a person thinks God is watching their behavior, then you don't have to watch your back as vigorously and can trust others with a little more confidence. The idea of "heaven" and "hell" awaiting after life, preserves a kind of economy of punishment and reward that extends beyond what happens in this world--should events in this world seem unjust or unfair.

3. Faith and Good will: It gives us a hope that things will be OK in the end, regardless of what we face in life. Your parents die leaving you homeless, then you can persevere better with the belief that God will help you along the way to make up for that horrible loss.

Of course, it could be that the world is a crap shoot and we humans have been fortunately tempered by our superstitions that have allowed us to create more sophisticated societies than gorillas or monkeys.

To me, all this brings up a vital question as to whether it may be better to delude ourselves with a fantasy that helps us function better in the world or else embrace a truth that maybe would lead to a collapse of human civilization as we know it.

OR maybe there's a God. My thought is that if there is, then that God must be found somewhere in the pages of all the various religions and such of the world and not only in a particular religion's texts. I just can't see God picking sides, like he's someone's personal bodyguard against everyone one else or something. I don't know.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I had argued, whether theists are aware of it or not, why theists believe in a God is the subliminal impulses that drive theists to seek consonance to soothe the cognitive dissonances generated from the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

To ensure the certainty and beyond any doubt that a God can eliminate the terrible cognitive dissonances pulsating from within, the God believed must be omnipotent and supremely perfect.
The slightest imperfections or cracks in God will trigger the terrible pains of the cognitive dissonances to exude to their consciousness.

Given the current psychological state of the existential crisis, I believe the idea of a God [albeit illusory - a useful illusion] is a critical necessity for the majority [theists] to soothe the inherent unavoidable pains from the cognitive dissonance.
At present, there are no better alternatives for them in that psychological state.

What I had proposed is;
the deeply embedded inherent existential crisis is unavoidable,
the only solution is to suppress and modulate this existential crisis effectively by increasing the strengths of the neural inhibitors to keep it a bay,
with the current trend of the exponential and expansion of knowledge and technology, I am optimistic [toward the future 50, 75 or >100 years time] we can enable individual[s] to self-develop in increasing the strength and efficiency of inhibitors, such that they will not resort to a belief in a perfect God.

My point remains;
God is Impossible to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
but it is a useful illusion and fiction for the typical theists at present but not the future.

[Agent Smith]

I don't know the difference between not red and yellow.

[Iwannaplato]

To ensure the certainty and beyond any doubt that a God can eliminate the terrible cognitive dissonances pulsating from within, the God believed must be omnipotent and supremely perfect.
The slightest imperfections or cracks in God will trigger the terrible pains of the cognitive dissonances to exude to their consciousness.

Then it is very odd that so many had fallible deities. Even Yahweh is subject to fits of rage and an employee (Lucifier) who rebelled against him causing all sorts of problems. Jesus had doubts on the cross. All the pagan religions with gods and goddesses getting up to all sorts of idiotice, cranky, playful, silly behavior. The obvious sense that many theists have that their Gods need things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't know the difference between not red and yellow.

Since the above followed after my post, not sure what is your intention?
Has it anything to do with my post?

However I noted many of your responses [one-liners] are totally out of sync with the current theme of the discussion.

Suggest you get in alignment with the theme or at least give some clues to your 'aphoristic' [cryptic] one-liners on the direction you are heading toward.

[Agent Smith]

I don't know the difference between not red and yellow.

Since the above followed after my post, not sure what is your intention?
Has it anything to do with my post?

However I noted many of your responses [one-liners] are totally out of sync with the current theme of the discussion.

Suggest you get in alignment with the theme or at least give some clues to your 'aphoristic' [cryptic] one-liners on the direction you are heading toward.

Fair enough.

[socrat44]

God is something absolute.
in physics there is only one absolute frame of reference -
- the four-dimensional spacetime of Minkowski.
#
" If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start."
/ Book ‘The quantum self’, page 208, by Danah Zohar/
#
"If He (God) understands Math and Physics then He exists."/Frank Tipler/.
All other arguments are subjective. As subjective evidence they are speculative.
-------------.

[Dontaskme]

God interpretated as a ''Creator'' is impossible. Because a 'creator' implies division; the creator and the created. The knower and the known.

There is no such division. Reality is infinitely seamless one without a second. There is nowhere consciousness begins or ends. Consciousness is either conscious or unconscious, both one and the same aliveness, just differing in appearance, that's all. An apparent difference, where there is none.

This sharing has no authority.

[Belinda]

God interpretated as a ''Creator'' is impossible. Because a 'creator' implies division; the creator and the created. The knower and the known.

There is no such division. Reality is infinitely seamless one without a second. There is nowhere consciousness begins or ends. Consciousness is either conscious or unconscious, both one and the same aliveness, just differing in appearance, that's all. An apparent difference, where there is none.

This sharing has no authority.

The division between creator and created is experienced but is illusory. This illusion pertains most of all to people who live in artificial habitats such as cities. There is archaeological and anthropological evidence of peoples who perceived themselves as one with the land they inhabited and from which they wrested their living.For example Australian aboriginal people, original Americans, and Scottish highlanders and islanders who were later to be forcibly rehomed in Canada.

[Agent Smith]

God's, si, impossible, but is this the philosophical counterpart of the Pythagorean fever that's gripped mathematics?