I am sure it is the other way round. Ever since the “idea” [philosophical] of God emerged no person has ever proved God exists as real positively.
History of mankind?? once it was so obvious “the Earth is flat” as based on normal observation, but that has been proven wrong with additional knowledge. God’s existence at present is so obvious to the majority, but with additional knowledge and thinking power, God is an impossibility.
As I had demonstrated, the idea of God persisted only because it has a critical psychological utility to deal with an inherent existential crisis.
As for my syllogism “God is an impossibility” show me where has I failed on this argument?
“I’ve literally never heard any religion person??”
Maybe your exposure is to lay-religious believers who are merely “sheeps”.
Try researching on theologian philosophers on their views of an ontological supremely perfect being.
I suggest you read up on the ontological God. plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto … arguments/
And also the other way round: No person has ever proved God does not exist.
The flat Earth has not much to do with the existence of God, with the theodicy.
Please, read that part of my post again. It is obvious that you did not understand what I wrote:
This means that humans have always believed in God, because they have always believed in a possibility, in God as a possibilitiy!
Again, this is the other way round. And, unfortunately or fortuantely, the majority believes in God, and the number of this majority increases from day to day.
I have shown it. You have not shown a syllogism, but a wishful thinking.
Show me that “God is a contradiction” (one of your false premises).
Show me that a “contradiction is impossible” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “absolute perfection is an impossibility” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “God is an impossibility” (one of your false conclusions).
As you know, my own interest in God and religion revolves almost entirely around the existential relationship between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side of it.
And then in closing the gap between what we profess to believe about it “in our head” and the extent to which we able to demonstrate to others that what we believe is true is that which all rational men and women are, in turn, obligated to believe as well.
In that context, how then are you not as well an absolutist [or what I call an objectivist] in regard to your own value judgments “here and now”?
What would really intrigue me, in other words, is a discussion between you and James in which you connect the dots [substantively] between a moral narrative relating to a “conflicting good” that we are all likely to be familiar with, and your respective beliefs about the role that God [or No God] plays in the behaviors that you choose.
On another thread perhaps.
Though I do agree with you that James’s “100% certain” convictions seem clearly to be embedded in the assumption that if he thinks something is true that makes it true.
Though, admittedly, that, as well, is predicated only on the extent to which I really do understand either one of you.
The word “meaning” has many different . . . meanings. And these meanings cannot be reduced to a single meaning. We should accept that fact instead of trying to reduce the irreducible.
The concept of perfect circle is meaningless in the sense that it does not refer to anything that can be experienced. Human-like aliens, zombies, etc are all meaningful words because they refer to something that can be experienced even though the probability of experiencing these things is extremely low.
Does simply having an opinion make you an absolutist? No. In order to be an absolutist you must think that your opinion regarding some state of reality cannot turn out to be wrong.
Beliefs can only be more or less probable/likely. When someone comes along and denies this you can be sure you are dealing with an absolutist.
I think that if you don’t drink water for more than a week that you will die. But this is not an absolute truth. This is merely an outcome with an extremely high probability. As Hume said, the future is under no obligation to mimic the past. It can be anything it wants. If it wants to, it can give us humans who can go without water for months or even years.
To rely on this [no proofs god exists] as primary is insulting one’s own intelligence.
In any case, my syllogism above show that a God cannot exists in the first place because God is an impossibility.
It is the same, i.e. blinded to the more refined truth of reality.
In the first place possibility is not reality. Possibility is merely wishful thinking until one can provide solid proofs a god exists.
As I had shown, god is an impossibility, thus no point hoping for god to be possibly real.
As I had stated majority’s belief do not equal to truth of reality. Note flat Earth, Sun going orbiting the Earth, and the likes. What is needed is proofs to justify one’s proposition.
You don’t seem to understand the principles of syllogism?
Stating ‘your false premise’ is not an argument at all.
This is an argument for why a type of god is impossible, i.e., a perfect god. You set up a device that rates god using the absolute measure of perfection when in fact all our finite selves can apprehend is the relative measure of perfection. The ontological god has the argumentative weakness of whom is doing the conceiving. So, P1 is only true from an empirical perspective and not of essence. God might perfect in a way we cannot conceive. P2, sure, god has to be absolutely perfect, but since such absolute is not empirically apprehensible, we still have to entretain the theoretical possibility of a theoretical absolute perfection. In other words the classic response to the problem of evil, which you haven’t manage to defeat. C does not follow without adding a lot more. The empirical experience of absolute perfection is impossible, according to your argument. The existence of a perfect circle is theoretical because of the observer’s limitations and not because it is impossible itself, like a square circle. A circle might be theoretically perfect and yet errors in the observer’s conception will leave us, empirically, with a a relative perfection. An absolutely perfect God is impossible because an absolute observer is impossible. Does not mean however that such god is impossible but that having an absolute perception is. An absolutely perfect God, in-himself, remains a theoretical possibility.
“No alternative” simply means that there is no other possibility that is more likely.
For example, if my past experience contains a billion white swans and zero black swans then I have no other choice, which is to say, I have “no alternative” other than to conclude (or assume, expect, predict, etc) that every single swan in the future will also be white. This, however, does not mean that every single swan in the future will be white. The map is not the territory. Or in plain terms, what you expect will happen is not the same as what will happen.
Many people cannot accept this fact. One has no choice but to wonder why? And the answer is because they cannot act knowing that they might be wrong.
Yes, that’s what I said. But you’re not listening.
“No alternative” means that there is NO OTHER POSSIBILITY that is more likely.
The number of possibilities that are more likely is none, zero, zilch.
Can anyone else here see what a retard this guy is?
I am not inventing a new language. What I am doing is I am properly interpreting currently existing language.
Unlike you who’s taking it literally (because you suffer from a mild form of autism.)
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your syllogism is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with observations, then it’s wrong.
God is discovered through observations. Either there is sufficient evidence of the existence of God or there is not. God does not spring into existence nor does He cease to exist because of some words on a page.
Let’s take a look at how the retard’s twisted mind, which he’s now trying to project onto me, works.
When he says “alternative” he does not mean what normal people mean when they use that word. When someone who’s normal says that “there is no alternative but to die if you go without water for more than a week” what they are saying is that “there is no alternative but to expect or to conclude or to predict that a person who goes without water for more than a week will die”. This does not mean that the person will die. It simply means that we are expecting that the person will die. What normal people mean when they say “alternative” is an alternative to some assumption, belief, expectation, prediction, etc. The retard, on the other hand, uses the word “alternative” to mean an alternative to what’s going to happen. When the retard says “there is no alternative but to die if you go without water for more than a week” he is meaning it literally i.e. that nothing else can happen other than death. Here, we can clearly see that he’s confusing one’s expectations of what’s going to happen (map) with what’s going to happen (territory.)
What a moron.
By possibility I mean assumption, belief, expectation, prediction, etc.
We choose which one of the many possible expectations regarding some future state we are going to adopt.
We do not choose what’s going to happen. We choose what we’re going to believe what’s going to happen.
And we do so by assigning a probability value to each one of the possible expectations and then choosing the expectation that has the highest probability.
When someone says “there is no alternative” what they mean is “there is no other expectation that is more likely or equally likely”.
Absolute perfection is not only possible, it’s very common.
Every rock is perfect. It has the characteristics of ‘rockness’.
Water is perfect.
Molecules.
Trees.
The universe as a whole.
How can these things be imperfect?
A three legged cat might be imperfect but the majority of cats are perfect.
As soon as you say ‘generally’, you admit that it does not always apply and so you have undermined premise 2.
This is not the logical response of a theist.
Typically:
Theist A knows of the existence of God A. Theist B comes along and says that God B is better than God A. Theist A simply says that God B does not exist and that Theist B is mistaken about God B.
If Theist A accepts that God B exists, then he is admitting the existence of multiple gods. That’s a big no-no for a monotheist.
The characteristics of Jehovah don’t change when somebody says that Vishnu exists.
This one-upsmanship does not need to take place. Therefore, God does not need to be perfect.
Show me that “God is a contradiction” (one of your false premises).
Show me that a “contradiction is impossible” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “absolute perfection is an impossibility” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “God is an impossibility” (one of your false conclusions).
An absolutist/objectivist makes the assumption that the manner in which she construes a value judgment, is the manner in which all rational men and women are obligated in turn to construe it. Thus others can either be “one of us” or “one of them”. Then it’s only a matter of predicating this assumption on one or another rendition of God, Reason, Science, Nature, etc.
Or you can reject these transcending fonts and acknowledge that your own values are just subjective/subjunctive “existential contraptions” – one or another rendition of “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine”.
[i]What I would suggest however is that you and James start a new thread in which you discuss these speculations as they relate to an actual moral/political context/conflict most here will be familiar with.[/i]
In other words, instead of an exchange of “general descriptions” like this:
On the other hand this…
…is less a value judgment than a biological imperative. Sooner or later all of us must consume water or we will die. Period.
Though, sure, per Hume’s insights regarding the difference between correlation and cause and effect, we can never be absolutely certain even of that.
…just in your little world of insecurity and self-doubt.
There can never be a possible until there is an impossible. And “impossible” doesn’t mean “unlikely” (to real people anyway). Impossible means that it is 100% certain that it does not exist at all. It means a contradiction is logic.
