God is an Impossibility

[seeds]

Do you expect us to stand on Mars [or Pluto] and look at Earth without humans?

No. I expect you (as a thought experiment) to stand outside the bounds of the universe itself...



...and imagine it to be totally devoid of any humans whatsoever, and then tell me how that would have any bearing or relevance to the real and actual question (as opposed to your strawman argument) of whether or not there is a higher Being who is responsible for the creation of that bubble of reality?

I can imagine what you proposed [a matrix programmer] but at the most whatever the resultant is only imagination.
Ultimately it is an impossibility that is beyond imagination because there is no way, humans as part of parcel of reality can stand apart from reality [which it is imperative a part of] to conclude on anything that is independent of the human self.

You clearly do not understand the purpose (and latitude) of a "thought experiment."

Furthermore, your response demonstrates how your self-limiting (materialistic) philosophy hamstrings your imagination in such a way that even though you are correct in presuming that your physical body can never stand apart from this universe (as is depicted in the following illustration)....



...you are nevertheless incapable (due to your closed-mindedness) of entertaining the notion that your mind (soul/consciousness) can (and will) stand apart from it at the moment of death.

Illustration Captions:

"Look into a human mind and realize that just as the image of that globe of the earth literally cannot be disconnected from the other images in that mind in such a way that would allow it to exist on its own, outside and independent of the mind and consciousness that created it..."

"...likewise, neither can the advanced "images" of our bodies exist outside and independent of the mind and consciousness that created them..."

"...Our bodies literally have no reality on the other side of this barrier..."

However, our eternal souls do.

Indeed, I suggest that our "souls" (our "I AM-nesses") are what's truly real, as opposed to this material "illusion" we are momentarily experiencing.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, more "noise" stemming from the "existential crisis" encoded in my DNA. )

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, or that you have to agree with my whacky theory, however, come on now, Veritas, you claim to have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which, according to you, covers the likes of my particular take on reality.

In which case, just for the sake of you proving to me that you at least understand the basics of my theory, please tell me, what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

In terms of spirituality, yours belong to those who have some sort of real experiences re 'spirituality' of all sorts.
In your case you have the ability to draw out what you experienced which narrow your experiences to the sort the images mostly has an eye or eyes.
The 'eye' symbolizes your mind's eye looking at things and experiencing the images.

While you are correct in thinking that the "eyes" in my illustrations represent the "mind's eye," you are nevertheless failing to recognize that they also represent what is commonly referred to as the "soul" (or the "I Am-ness"), which I suggest is the permanent (or "core") aspect of our being that is capable of surviving the death of the material body and living eternally in a higher context of reality.

You also failed miserably in the task of answering the actual question I asked you, which was this...

...what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

The fact that you completely ignored that question reveals to me precisely what I suspected, and that is that you don't have a clue as to what my theory actually entails and are thus not in a position to dismiss it.

I bet Jill Bolte a neuroscientist [sp. brain anatomy] have had a more refined and 'higher' spiritual experience than what you [& others] have had experienced, but hers was triggered by a very severe brain damage from a stroke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=5s
I suggest you listen to the video if you have not or read her book.

I already watched her video many times, many years ago. Her story is amazing and beautifully told.

Furthermore, if you truly understood my theory, then you would realize how much her story tends to support what I am suggesting.

And btw, no, I highly doubt that her spiritual experience could have been "higher" than the profound spiritual epiphany that I experience back in the summer of 1970.

Indeed, what I experienced back then is what has driven me to obsessively create all of these strange illustrations in an effort to convey to others what was conveyed to me.

Btw, have you contrasted your ideology with that of monadology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

I like some of Leibniz's ideas. This one, for example, from the Wiki article...

Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality.

And that is pretty much what I am implying in my illustrations about the universe, in that all of its phenomenal features are created from the extremely advanced mental substances (mental holography) of a higher consciousness.

Of course, George Berkeley had already made that claim centuries ago.
_______

[seeds]

However, other than the fact that I appear to be an obsessive theistic nutjob who likes to create strange visuals, what in the world do you think my metaphorical illustrations (especially those "icons"/"eye-cons") are implying if not the "personhood" (the self-aware "I Am-ness") of God?...






Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, or that you have to agree with my whacky theory, however, come on now, Veritas, you claim to have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which, according to you, covers the likes of my particular take on reality.

In which case, just for the sake of you proving to me that you at least understand the basics of my theory, please tell me, what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

By the way, I even created an illustration (maybe 25 years ago) that seems to perfectly exemplify your quarreling boneheaded humans. Here it is...



Captions starting at 9 oclock and moving clockwise:

Christian seed: "God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Muslim seed: "You are infidels! Allah is God and Mohammad is his prophet!"

Materialist seed: "You're all a bunch-a-nuts! There is no god. This whole thing is just a big accident!"

Hindu seed: "You are misinformed. There are many gods. There is Brahma and Shiva and Vishnu. There is Prajapati, Indra, Agni, Krishna, Ganesh,...."

Buddhist seed: "I agree with the "accident guy." There is no god. But you do have to keep coming back, again and again, in order to become a better...um?...er?..."

GOD: "My kids are a real hoot!"

Racist seed: "The stripes on your shell are vertical and not horizontal like mine. You are unworthy!"

The point is, my dear little V, the ignorant and petty opinions of the (yet to be fully-born) seeds have no bearing on what actually is, for they are completely oblivious of the higher truth of their situation.

Indeed, this is the perfect representation of how and why your argument is a strawman. Just take your place somewhere amidst your fellow seeds in the illustration and keep demonstrating that you too are just as oblivious as they are.
_______

Does this include you seeds as well?

Not the "completely oblivious of the higher truth" part, but, yes, I am indeed one of the seeds (hence my moniker).

I'm the seed that is speaking in the following illustration...



Captions:

GOD: "You must have a logical purpose that does not diminish when viewed in the light of the eternal perspective. Though it may be difficult to fathom it is as simple as this: You are my children and you will become like me. Believe it for it is so. That is life's ultimate truth and it is ours to share together forever."

Me (quoting a metaphysical prophecy): "...In the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished..." (Revelation, 10:7)

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

You clearly do not understand the purpose (and latitude) of a "thought experiment."

Furthermore, your response demonstrates how your self-limiting (materialistic) philosophy hamstrings your imagination in such a way that even though you are correct in presuming that your physical body can never stand apart from this universe (as is depicted in the following illustration)....

What so complex about 'thought experiments?'

Thought experiments are basically devices of the imagination. They are employed for various purposes such an entertainment, education, conceptual analysis, exploration, hypothesizing, theory selection, theory implementation, etc.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

A thought experiment is simply a more organized systems of thoughts for various purposes and they remain basically thoughts.

Your thought experiment however does not serve the intended purpose we are driving at, i.e. the existence of a panentheistic God as real.

...you are nevertheless incapable (due to your closed-mindedness) of entertaining the notion that your mind (soul/consciousness) can (and will) stand apart from it at the moment of death.

So far there is no convincing proof there is a real independent soul that can survive physical death.

Illustration Captions:

"Look into a human mind and realize that just as the image of that globe of the earth literally cannot be disconnected from the other images in that mind in such a way that would allow it to exist on its own, outside and independent of the mind and consciousness that created it..."

"...likewise, neither can the advanced "images" of our bodies exist outside and independent of the mind and consciousness that created them..."

"...Our bodies literally have no reality on the other side of this barrier..."

However, our eternal souls do.

Our bodies [emergent] are like icebergs in the cold ocean and upon physical death melts into ocean with no more individual identity.

Indeed, I suggest that our "souls" (our "I AM-nesses") are what's truly real, as opposed to this material "illusion" we are momentarily experiencing.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, more "noise" stemming from the "existential crisis" encoded in my DNA. )

(Continued in next post)
_______

I don't regard the above as 'noise' but your above claims and arguments as claimed by many is an impossible to be real.
The 'I' that think "I-Think" is empirically real but the "I-AM" [I-in-Itself] is impossible to be real.

Note Hume's claim the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing else. Kant also provided very detailed and convincing arguments to debunk your claim.
Buddhism provided a the 180 degree turn there is no 'atman' [independent soul] i.e. anatman.

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, or that you have to agree with my whacky theory, however, come on now, Veritas, you claim to have done extensive research into all sorts of spiritual experiences which, according to you, covers the likes of my particular take on reality.

In which case, just for the sake of you proving to me that you at least understand the basics of my theory, please tell me, what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

In terms of spirituality, yours belong to those who have some sort of real experiences re 'spirituality' of all sorts.
In your case you have the ability to draw out what you experienced which narrow your experiences to the sort the images mostly has an eye or eyes.
The 'eye' symbolizes your mind's eye looking at things and experiencing the images.

While you are correct in thinking that the "eyes" in my illustrations represent the "mind's eye," you are nevertheless failing to recognize that they also represent what is commonly referred to as the "soul" (or the "I Am-ness"), which I suggest is the permanent (or "core") aspect of our being that is capable of surviving the death of the material body and living eternally in a higher context of reality.

Note my point above on why an independent soul is illusory and not tenable to be real.

You also failed miserably in the task of answering the actual question I asked you, which was this...

...what do you suppose my illustrations imply in regards to our ultimate and eternal destiny?

The fact that you completely ignored that question reveals to me precisely what I suspected, and that is that you don't have a clue as to what my theory actually entails and are thus not in a position to dismiss it.

1. In talks of ultimate and eternal destiny like your case is similar to Vedanta where the individual atman will merge with the Brahman.
2. My focus was on your ultimate purpose in this case is to justify that your panentheistic God exists as real.
3. Because a God is impossible to real, the question of 1 is moot.

I bet Jill Bolte a neuroscientist [sp. brain anatomy] have had a more refined and 'higher' spiritual experience than what you [& others] have had experienced, but hers was triggered by a very severe brain damage from a stroke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=5s
I suggest you listen to the video if you have not or read her book.

I already watched her video many times, many years ago. Her story is amazing and beautifully told.

Furthermore, if you truly understood my theory, then you would realize how much her story tends to support what I am suggesting.

You missed the critical point here.

I agree Bolte's experience is real.
Did you not realize her experiences arose immediate from a severe brain damage?
Bolte understood her profound experience was due to brain damage from a stroke and as a neuro-anatomist she understood very well it has something to do with the workings of her brain and not that there is something special extending to a God. She associated her experiences with those of non-theistic Buddhism.

And btw, no, I highly doubt that her spiritual experience could have been "higher" than the profound spiritual epiphany that I experience back in the summer of 1970.

Indeed, what I experienced back then is what has driven me to obsessively create all of these strange illustrations in an effort to convey to others what was conveyed to me.

Upon reading about Bolte's experiences due to a brain damage, and if you are sufficient rational and objective, you should have question whether something also happened in your brain [that trigger the spiritual correlates] to give you that profound spiritual epiphany in that summer of 1970.
But unfortunately the forces of your existential crisis was then and is now too strong that they locked you into a dogmatic silo.

As I had claimed I did extensive research on spiritual experiences and with sufficient knowledge had to dismiss [disappointedly, since I thought I was special then] all mine spiritual experiences as nothing special but merely brain activities of a certain 'spiritual' correlates.

Note the common profound spiritual experiences from those who suffered from Temporal Epilepsy which is linked to the famous founders and prominent figures of various religions. St. Paul was likely to have suffered from temporal epilepsy, so was Muhammad and others.
Strongly recommend you listen to this video;
Temporal Epilepsy and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Such profound spiritual experiences can also be triggered deliberately via drugs and other methods.

There are so many ways that could trigger that specific spiritual correlates [algorithm] in the brain. Your profound spiritual experiences is merely one trigger of that spiritual algorithm in your brain.

Btw, have you contrasted your ideology with that of monadology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

I like some of Leibniz's ideas. This one, for example, from the Wiki article...

Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality.

And that is pretty much what I am implying in my illustrations about the universe, in that all of its phenomenal features are created from the extremely advanced mental substances (mental holography) of a higher consciousness.

Of course, George Berkeley had already made that claim centuries ago.
_______

Kant focused on Leibniz's theories and demonstrate them to be illusory as things-in-themselves.
You'll need to read Kant very thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree with] the arguments involved.

Your profound spiritual experiences are merely a certain specific neural activities related to the spiritual algorithm. They have nothing to do with any illusory panentheistic God.
Jill Bolte's profound experiences is very sufficient to justify such a claim.

Note Andrew Newberg.
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
his research is on what happen in the brain during such profound spiritual experiences.
Unfortunately we do not have the advanced technology to pin point the exact neural sets at present, so Newberg's results and correlations based on fMRI imagings are very crude.

Btw, what I have been posting is merely a tip of an iceberg of information I have gathered. The conclusion is whatever the profound spiritual experiences claimed by various people [e.g. you and me-previously] are merely brain activities triggered the "spiritual" algorithm from various origins.

[attofishpi]

Btw, what I have been posting is merely a tip of an iceberg of information I have gathered. The conclusion is whatever the profound spiritual experiences claimed by various people [e.g. you and me-previously] are merely brain activities triggered the "spiritual" algorithm from various origins.

What part of Panentheism does not permit God from triggering synapses? As I have been tested and tested God back, ya - it can, and does.

As far as the SOUL - consider it as a 'seed', perhaps a tiny part of matter traversing time - reincarnating within matter. But does it matter?

Perhaps we should attend MASS and consider whether it does indeed MATTER?


btw. Seeds re your artwork, I would like to hear more about it and you in fact if interested PM me.

[Age]

They have to be one or the other. Because either the cosmos is ordered or it's random.

When it is discovered what thee Universe is fundamentally made up of, and how the Universe fundamentally works, then what becomes very clear is how the so-called 'cosmos' could be and is 'ordered randomly', or 'randomly ordered'.

If ANY one is Truly INTERESTED in how this could even be possible, then just let me know.

Maybe, but when I use the word random I mean absolutely devoid of any order or meaning.

"Ordered randomly" and "randomly ordered" is basically ordered.

Okay. But 'what appears' and 'what is the case' can be two very different things, as well as being two completely opposing things, sometimes.

[Belinda]

When it is discovered what thee Universe is fundamentally made up of, and how the Universe fundamentally works, then what becomes very clear is how the so-called 'cosmos' could be and is 'ordered randomly', or 'randomly ordered'.

If ANY one is Truly INTERESTED in how this could even be possible, then just let me know.

Maybe, but when I use the word random I mean absolutely devoid of any order or meaning.

"Ordered randomly" and "randomly ordered" is basically ordered.

Okay. But 'what appears' and 'what is the case' can be two very different things, as well as being two completely opposing things, sometimes.

What word or phrase do you employ when you want to refer to absolute truth or reality?

[seeds]

...you are nevertheless incapable (due to your closed-mindedness) of entertaining the notion that your mind (soul/consciousness) can (and will) stand apart from it [the universe] at the moment of death.

So far there is no convincing proof there is a real independent soul that can survive physical death.

Right you are.

However, I have gone to great lengths in other threads to explain why it could possibly be devastating to humanity (devastating to the very purpose of the earth) if we were allowed to understand that "life-after-death" (in a higher form and a higher [more wondrous] context of reality) is irrefutably true.

And that is precisely why I am suggesting that the truth of the reality of life-after-death is purposely kept hidden from us.

Why?

So that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Indeed, if you are looking for something that counters P1 of your syllogism...

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.

...then look no further than the utter perfection of the "dream-like" illusion of this universe and how it completely (and intentionally) fools intelligent humans (such as yourself) into believing that it is a product of chance, and thus convinces many humans that this material dimension of reality might just be "all there is" to life and existence itself...

...(which is precisely the effect that this absolutely "perfect" illusion is designed to produce).

Your thought experiment however does not serve the intended purpose we are driving at, i.e. the existence of a panentheistic God as real.

No, little V, you are deviously twisting things around, for that was not the intended purpose of my thought experiment.

The intended purpose of my thought experiment was my "biennial exercise in futility" to get you to see that the premise of your thread is based on a strawman argument.

I say "biennial" because it was just a little over two years ago when we had the following exchange...

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left,...

No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness.

...then they will resort to all sort of condemnations...

Yes, out of sheer exasperation of your inability to understand the flimsiness of your arguments.

Note my argument is a short one;

• 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.

All you need is to be prove P1 or P2 is false.

The only thing I can prove in this situation is how foolish I am for continuing to argue with someone who has (as mentioned earlier) a sense of logic equivalent to that of a flat-earther.

For some inexplicable reason, you just cannot seem to get it into your head that your P2...

...“God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect”...

...is complete and total nonsense.

As I stated back then,...

...you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness...

...and that's pretty much where I am right now.

However, I must admit, I am impressed with the pit bull-ish tenacity with which you cling to your false premise....



...Bad dog!

If only you were promoting something positive and uplifting for humanity, instead of your hopeless ("life has no ultimate purpose") nihilism.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

...you are nevertheless incapable (due to your closed-mindedness) of entertaining the notion that your mind (soul/consciousness) can (and will) stand apart from it [the universe] at the moment of death.

So far there is no convincing proof there is a real independent soul that can survive physical death.

Right you are.

However, I have gone to great lengths in other threads to explain why it could possibly be devastating to humanity (devastating to the very purpose of the earth) if we were allowed to understand that "life-after-death" (in a higher form and a higher [more wondrous] context of reality) is irrefutably true.


And that is precisely why I am suggesting that the truth of the reality of life-after-death is purposely kept hidden from us.

Why?

So that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Indeed, if you are looking for something that counters P1 of your syllogism...

I have not read your argument in the various threads on this point.

If the above bolded to 'the why' is your answer, then it is a mere form of escapism and intellectual cowardice.

It is a very natural resultant of the existential crisis for the majority to seek a soul that survives physical death.
The seeking of the life after death have been doing going for eons, note the mummification of the Egyptians and others. There is the idea the soul which can avoid hell and enter into heaven and paradise from the Abrahamic religions and others.

The one very serious problem of tempting to seek it out prematurely [your concern] is that of the suicide bombers driven by this premature motive which at present is happening with Muslims as promised by the Islamic doctrine. However such happenings are rare [but of heavy impact] relative to 1.4 billion Muslims.

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.

...then look no further than the utter perfection of the "dream-like" illusion of this universe and how it completely (and intentionally) fools intelligent humans (such as yourself) into believing that it is a product of chance, and thus convinces many humans that this material dimension of reality might just be "all there is" to life and existence itself...

...(which is precisely the effect that this absolutely "perfect" illusion is designed to produce).

Talking about strawman, you are the one who is constructing strawman[s] regularly as above.
Your 'utter perfection' [at most relative] above has no relevance to the absolute perfection in my P1 - that is a typical strawman.

Where did I mention 'chance?' You are introducing 'chance' to contrast your falsehood deliberate creation by a deity.
I have written in various posts that my approach is that of top-down [no focus on chance] rather than bottom-up. This relies on what is empirically observable, verifiable and justifiable within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where science is the most credible at present.

Note whatever your spiritual claims they cannot be verified and justified within the scientific FSK [the most credible FSK at present]. If you are relying on your own VERY subjective one person FSK, then you are implying you have a better method of knowledge than science?
If your personal FSK is more reliable than science, then you deserve a Nobel Prize?
So prove your FSK is reliable and credible.

Your thought experiment however does not serve the intended purpose we are driving at, i.e. the existence of a panentheistic God as real.

No, little V, you are deviously twisting things around, for that was not the intended purpose of my thought experiment.

The intended purpose of my thought experiment was my "biennial exercise in futility" to get you to see that the premise of your thread is based on a strawman argument.

I say "biennial" because it was just a little over two years ago when we had the following exchange...

Your ad hominen is merely a defense mechanism to sustain a shaken consonance.
You are the one who is constructing strawman[s] as I had shown so many times, resorting to ad hominen, violence and making noises.

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left,...

No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness.

...then they will resort to all sort of condemnations...

Yes, out of sheer exasperation of your inability to understand the flimsiness of your arguments.

The flimsiness is from the flimsiness of your heavily 'dissonanced' mind and driven to make unverifiable claims based on personal faith.

Note my argument is a short one;

• 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.

All you need is to be prove P1 or P2 is false.

The only thing I can prove in this situation is how foolish I am for continuing to argue with someone who has (as mentioned earlier) a sense of logic equivalent to that of a flat-earther.

For some inexplicable reason, you just cannot seem to get it into your head that your P2...

...“God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect”...

...is complete and total nonsense.

As I stated back then,...

...you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness...

...and that's pretty much where I am right now.

However, I must admit, I am impressed with the pit bull-ish tenacity with which you cling to your false premise....
...Bad dog!

If only you were promoting something positive and uplifting for humanity, instead of your hopeless ("life has no ultimate purpose") nihilism.
_______

As I had stated you are merely making noises and ad hominen to calm your heavily shaken 'dissonanced' mind [subliminally].

As I had insisted the only valid currency in this forum [Philosophy] is valid and sound arguments.

I am sure there is no problem with the structure of my syllogism.
I suggest you review each word thoroughly from the widest to the narrowest sense in my premises before you arrive with your final views.
However I am not confident you will be objective in this case but will be driven by confirmation bias.

You don't seem to realize you are in a sort of 'drunken' state [subliminally] as driven by cognitive dissonance thus has to cling to whatever you can to hold on to whatever consonances you have on hand. You are more of a flat-earther than what you claim of me.

If only you were promoting something positive and uplifting for humanity, instead of your hopeless ("life has no ultimate purpose") nihilism.

Once the majority can unleash themselves from this bondage that is driven by their inherent desperate cognitive dissonance to seek consonance from an illusory deity, they will free from the greatest suffering a human has to endure.
Free does not mean it will go away, but rather one will have to skill to manage and module this inherent cognitive dissonance.
When freed, then the majority of humans can contribute to work on perpetual peace. Note my long engagements [many threads] in the Philosophy of Morality threads.

Note Kant's Vision and Mission;
1. What can I know? - Epistemology [accomplished]
2. What should I do? - Morality and Ethics [structure accomplished]
3. From 1&2 What can hope for? Perpetual Peace

Kant: Perpetual Peace
https://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-Peace- ... 159986861X

Kant had already provided answers to 1 & 2, I have relied on them with improvisations and when the majority of humans has achieved reasonable progress in 1 & 2, then perpetual peace will follow naturally.
I am very optimistic of progress on my side to these two following projects;
1. The Human Genome Project - completed awaiting positive use.
2. https://www.humanconnectome.org/]Human ... me Project - progressing

On the other hand while your illusory deity can give comforts of consonance based on faith purely for your selfish reasons, what can your claims of an illusory deity provide for humans in the future?
Your ideology has no obvious progressive positive trends [since 5000 years ago] on any potential good for the future.

Whatever ... the only valid currency in this forum [Philosophy] is valid and sound arguments.

[Age]

Maybe, but when I use the word random I mean absolutely devoid of any order or meaning.

"Ordered randomly" and "randomly ordered" is basically ordered.

Okay. But 'what appears' and 'what is the case' can be two very different things, as well as being two completely opposing things, sometimes.

What word or phrase do you employ when you want to refer to absolute truth or reality?

To 'absolute truth'; thee Truth or thee ACTUAL Truth. And,

To 'reality', in relation to thee ACTUAL Truth, 'Reality'.

[Age]

...you are nevertheless incapable (due to your closed-mindedness) of entertaining the notion that your mind (soul/consciousness) can (and will) stand apart from it [the universe] at the moment of death.

So far there is no convincing proof there is a real independent soul that can survive physical death.

Right you are.

But depending on how one defines the word 'soul', or what the word 'soul' refers to, EXACTLY, this will either decide whether (convincing) PROOF of 'real independent soul', that can survive physical death' exists or not. See, I can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY provide the (convincing) PROOF of this.

But, OBVIOUSLY, I can NOT do this to those who BELIEVE otherwise.

However, I have gone to great lengths in other threads to explain why it could possibly be devastating to humanity (devastating to the very purpose of the earth) if we were allowed to understand that "life-after-death" (in a higher form and a higher [more wondrous] context of reality) is irrefutably true.

WHY could it be possibly be devastating to humanity, and what is the very purpose of the earth, to you?

And that is precisely why I am suggesting that the truth of the reality of life-after-death is purposely kept hidden from us.

Why?

So that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Could your INTERPRETATION of what 'life-after-death' ACTUALLY means or refers to, EXACTLY, be wrong?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Indeed, if you are looking for something that counters P1 of your syllogism...

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.

...then look no further than the utter perfection of the "dream-like" illusion of this universe and how it completely (and intentionally) fools intelligent humans (such as yourself) into believing that it is a product of chance, and thus convinces many humans that this material dimension of reality might just be "all there is" to life and existence itself...

But, absolutely NOTHING can 'fool' a Truly intelligent human being. Only the non intelligent human beings get fooled into BELIEVING ANY thing.

...(which is precisely the effect that this absolutely "perfect" illusion is designed to produce).

What is 'this illusion', which you SEE and TALK ABOUT here?

And, WHY NOT just SEE and TALK ABOUT thee One and ONLY ACTUAL, and absolute PERFECT, Truth, or Reality, Itself, instead?

Your thought experiment however does not serve the intended purpose we are driving at, i.e. the existence of a panentheistic God as real.

No, little V, you are deviously twisting things around, for that was not the intended purpose of my thought experiment.

The intended purpose of my thought experiment was my "biennial exercise in futility" to get you to see that the premise of your thread is based on a strawman argument.

I say "biennial" because it was just a little over two years ago when we had the following exchange...

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left,...

No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness.

...then they will resort to all sort of condemnations...

Yes, out of sheer exasperation of your inability to understand the flimsiness of your arguments.

Note my argument is a short one;

• 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.

All you need is to be prove P1 or P2 is false.

The only thing I can prove in this situation is how foolish I am for continuing to argue with someone who has (as mentioned earlier) a sense of logic equivalent to that of a flat-earther.

For some inexplicable reason, you just cannot seem to get it into your head that your P2...

...“God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect”...

...is complete and total nonsense.

As I stated back then,...

...you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness...

...and that's pretty much where I am right now.

However, I must admit, I am impressed with the pit bull-ish tenacity with which you cling to your false premise....



...Bad dog!

If only you were promoting something positive and uplifting for humanity, instead of your hopeless ("life has no ultimate purpose") nihilism.
_______

[Belinda]

Okay. But 'what appears' and 'what is the case' can be two very different things, as well as being two completely opposing things, sometimes.

What word or phrase do you employ when you want to refer to absolute truth or reality?

To 'absolute truth'; thee Truth or thee ACTUAL Truth. And,

To 'reality', in relation to thee ACTUAL Truth, 'Reality'.

Agreed.

[Age]

...you are nevertheless incapable (due to your closed-mindedness) of entertaining the notion that your mind (soul/consciousness) can (and will) stand apart from it [the universe] at the moment of death.

So far there is no convincing proof there is a real independent soul that can survive physical death.

Right you are.

However, I have gone to great lengths in other threads to explain why it could possibly be devastating to humanity (devastating to the very purpose of the earth) if we were allowed to understand that "life-after-death" (in a higher form and a higher [more wondrous] context of reality) is irrefutably true.


And that is precisely why I am suggesting that the truth of the reality of life-after-death is purposely kept hidden from us.

Why?

So that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Indeed, if you are looking for something that counters P1 of your syllogism...

I have not read your argument in the various threads on this point.

If the above bolded to 'the why' is your answer, then it is a mere form of escapism and intellectual cowardice.

It is a very natural resultant of the existential crisis for the majority to seek a soul that survives physical death.
The seeking of the life after death have been doing going for eons, note the mummification of the Egyptians and others. There is the idea the soul which can avoid hell and enter into heaven and paradise from the Abrahamic religions and others.

The one very serious problem of tempting to seek it out prematurely [your concern] is that of the suicide bombers driven by this premature motive which at present is happening with Muslims as promised by the Islamic doctrine. However such happenings are rare [but of heavy impact] relative to 1.4 billion Muslims.

OBVIOUSLY False, and which is based completely on MISINTERPRETATIONS, only.

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.

...then look no further than the utter perfection of the "dream-like" illusion of this universe and how it completely (and intentionally) fools intelligent humans (such as yourself) into believing that it is a product of chance, and thus convinces many humans that this material dimension of reality might just be "all there is" to life and existence itself...

...(which is precisely the effect that this absolutely "perfect" illusion is designed to produce).

Talking about strawman, you are the one who is constructing strawman[s] regularly as above.
Your 'utter perfection' [at most relative] above has no relevance to the absolute perfection in my P1 - that is a typical strawman.

Where did I mention 'chance?' You are introducing 'chance' to contrast your falsehood deliberate creation by a deity.
I have written in various posts that my approach is that of top-down [no focus on chance] rather than bottom-up. This relies on what is empirically observable, verifiable and justifiable within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where science is the most credible at present.

Note whatever your spiritual claims they cannot be verified and justified within the scientific FSK [the most credible FSK at present]. If you are relying on your own VERY subjective one person FSK, then you are implying you have a better method of knowledge than science?
If your personal FSK is more reliable than science, then you deserve a Nobel Prize?
So prove your FSK is reliable and credible.

Your thought experiment however does not serve the intended purpose we are driving at, i.e. the existence of a panentheistic God as real.

No, little V, you are deviously twisting things around, for that was not the intended purpose of my thought experiment.

The intended purpose of my thought experiment was my "biennial exercise in futility" to get you to see that the premise of your thread is based on a strawman argument.

I say "biennial" because it was just a little over two years ago when we had the following exchange...

Your ad hominen is merely a defense mechanism to sustain a shaken consonance.
You are the one who is constructing strawman[s] as I had shown so many times, resorting to ad hominen, violence and making noises.

No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness.


Yes, out of sheer exasperation of your inability to understand the flimsiness of your arguments.

The flimsiness is from the flimsiness of your heavily 'dissonanced' mind and driven to make unverifiable claims based on personal faith.

The only thing I can prove in this situation is how foolish I am for continuing to argue with someone who has (as mentioned earlier) a sense of logic equivalent to that of a flat-earther.

For some inexplicable reason, you just cannot seem to get it into your head that your P2...

...“God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect”...

...is complete and total nonsense.

As I stated back then,...

...you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness...

...and that's pretty much where I am right now.

However, I must admit, I am impressed with the pit bull-ish tenacity with which you cling to your false premise....
...Bad dog!

If only you were promoting something positive and uplifting for humanity, instead of your hopeless ("life has no ultimate purpose") nihilism.
_______

As I had stated you are merely making noises and ad hominen to calm your heavily shaken 'dissonanced' mind [subliminally].

As I had insisted the only valid currency in this forum [Philosophy] is valid and sound arguments.

I am sure there is no problem with the structure of my syllogism.
I suggest you review each word thoroughly from the widest to the narrowest sense in my premises before you arrive with your final views.
However I am not confident you will be objective in this case but will be driven by confirmation bias.

You don't seem to realize you are in a sort of 'drunken' state [subliminally] as driven by cognitive dissonance thus has to cling to whatever you can to hold on to whatever consonances you have on hand. You are more of a flat-earther than what you claim of me.

If only you were promoting something positive and uplifting for humanity, instead of your hopeless ("life has no ultimate purpose") nihilism.

Once the majority can unleash themselves from this bondage that is driven by their inherent desperate cognitive dissonance to seek consonance from an illusory deity, they will free from the greatest suffering a human has to endure.
Free does not mean it will go away, but rather one will have to skill to manage and module this inherent cognitive dissonance.
When freed, then the majority of humans can contribute to work on perpetual peace. Note my long engagements [many threads] in the Philosophy of Morality threads.

Note Kant's Vision and Mission;
1. What can I know? - Epistemology [accomplished]
2. What should I do? - Morality and Ethics [structure accomplished]
3. From 1&2 What can hope for? Perpetual Peace

Kant: Perpetual Peace
https://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-Peace- ... 159986861X

Kant had already provided answers to 1 & 2, I have relied on them with improvisations and when the majority of humans has achieved reasonable progress in 1 & 2, then perpetual peace will follow naturally.
I am very optimistic of progress on my side to these two following projects;
1. The Human Genome Project - completed awaiting positive use.
2. https://www.humanconnectome.org/]Human ... me Project - progressing

On the other hand while your illusory deity can give comforts of consonance based on faith purely for your selfish reasons, what can your claims of an illusory deity provide for humans in the future?
Your ideology has no obvious progressive positive trends [since 5000 years ago] on any potential good for the future.

Whatever ... the only valid currency in this forum [Philosophy] is valid and sound arguments.

And yet you have NOT provided one valid and sound argument here.

[simplicity]

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.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?

I have not read through this thread [so pardon me if this idea has been advanced], but there is a significant error in your definition of "Absolute perfection." Absolute perfection [in a spiritual sense] is non-intellectual so it cannot be defined. It must be experienced.

Suggesting that a circle is Absolute perfection is incorrect as it is only a perfect circle when viewed with [and within] a particular perspective. The perfection of God goes beyond reason just as the comprehensiveness of the Universe goes beyond our ability to calculate.

Any attempt to intellectualize the non-intellectual will end the same... .