God is an Impossibility

Yes, via reason only.

You are confining ‘perfection’ to ‘something’ generally.
But the idea of God to theists is not merely something generally, rather God is unique and God is the only thing that is assigned absolute perfection, i.e. the perfection that is above all general perfections [relative].

“Conditional” mean ‘whatever-is’ is always related to something.
A creation is conditioned by a creator. [logic of causation]
But God as a creator cannot be conditioned by another creator. [claimed by theists]
Therefore God has to be totally unconditional.

Thus whatever perfection that is attributed to a God has to be totally unconditional, i.e. absolute perfection.

I used ‘totally’ to cover whatever perspective one can think of to counter the point.

Get it?

Note, philosophically there is no absolute certainty - Wittgenstein.
But there is relative certainty, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 within the decimal system.

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason.

I am relying on relative certainty, 1 + 1 = 5 is impossible conditioned within the decimal system of arithmetic.

Note my explanation of ‘totally unconditional’.

I defined ‘knowledge’ as Justified True Belief within an empirical-rational reality.

My claim ‘God is an impossibility’ is a proof but it is a proof within the ambit and conditions of reason, higher reason. This is not ‘knowledge’ as defined above.
We can say we have knowledge of the proof by reason, but the proof itself in this case is not ‘knowledge’ in contrast to say a Scientific proof.

Same as the above re ‘knowledge’.

That is another problem, i.e. you don’t have strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge.

Note this for example;

There are many other levels of critical thinking.
Note also lateral thinking versus vertical thinking.

It is so evident, put the thinking abilities of ALL humans within the Normal Distribution, you will find there are people [of some percentile] with higher thinking abilities using their higher ability to reason in contrast the average and stupid people.

You are an agnostic, i.e. you believe the following;

  1. 50% God does not exist.
  2. 50% God exists

Thus you do claim ‘God exists’ with a 50% probability.
I was referring to this ‘God exists’ probability of yours.

To understand the whole, one must understand the parts and their differences and how they are interdependent within the system.
Note for example Yin-Yang within the Tao, one must know understand the principles of each element. You can insist there is no difference between Yin and Yang.
It is the same Kant to differentiate between a priori and a posteriori and explain how they are interdependent with each other to enable knowledge to emerge. You have to read up Kant to understand [not necessary agree] before you critique his views.

Our concern here is with humans not lizards.

To understand why humans accept seeming blindly why 1 + 1 = 2 we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
To understand and resolve Hume’s Problem of Induction, we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
There are many other philosophical issues that require the differentiation between a priori and a posteriori.

Pris,

Okay, I just wanted to clarify your position on that point. If that’s what you think then fine, you think that you have reason to, but I disagree.

You misunderstand. I was initially making a general point about the term “perfection”. If you re-read what I wrote, you’ll see that I specifically gave reference to God. Also, if you take the time to search different dictionaries, you’ll find that the term “absolute perfection”, is only used for emphasis and that the term “perfection” necessarily describes an absolute. You won’t find terms like “general perfections” and there’s probably a valid reason for that.

If God is absolutely perfect, there is a reason that it is. “Reason” in this case denotes qualities or conditions. Therefore, the absolute perfection of God is conditional, because it’s absolute perfection is contingent upon the qualities that it possesses.

No, I don’t. I searched, but found no definition of “conditional” or “unconditional” that matches your description or application of the terms. Perhaps, seeing as you have “strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge” you could provide a reference which supports your use and application of the terms?

I searched, but couldn’t find anything relating to “relative certainty”. Perhaps you could explain what that term means? Based upon what I think you mean, there’s an epistemological difference between “relative certainty” and “a priori knowledge”. With a relative certainty, a change in circumstances could effect the certainty of what is being claimed or posited, but a priori knowledge, as far as I understand the term, is knowledge which is incontrovertible. Viz “All bachelors are unmarried”.

Which means that, whether you agree or not, you’re claiming that your argument/syllogism is axiomatic.

Note, the term “highest” is unnecessary.

Hmm … Do you mean in terms of certainty here?

Which I doesn’t make any sense to me.

This is a straw man. You specifically stated “higher refined reason” which is evidently not the same as “Higher-order thinking”, but since you are claiming that they are essentially the same in terms of reference, you are therefore claiming that you are using higher-order thinking; whilst stating that others are using “crude reasoning”. I think, based upon the submitted arguments, that claim may be both an overestimation of your own ability, and an underestimation of others ability.

That is very interesting. You are of course patently wrong, because I did not make a claim, neither is that an accurate reflection of my thinking. How are you going to use “high-order thinking” to demonstrate that you’re right on this point? You are aware that someone actually has to make a claim before you can assert that they’ve made one? This is just a guess, which I find to be ironically, crude. It is very problematic to tell people specifically what they believe based upon your inferences, as you will arrive at confirmation bias.

Disagree with the above or my conclusion in the syllogism?

Note in this particular discussion, one really has to nit-pick and be very precise with the intended meaning.

When you qualify God as ‘perfect’ then you are implying God is a thing in general.
Whatever way you use perfection, the ‘perfection’ you [as theists insist] attribute to God has be unique.
The most appropriate term to describe God’s perfection which is unique to God only is ‘absolute perfection’.

What is intended here with the term ‘absolute perfection’ attributed to God is to ensure it has no link to its creation, i.e. theists do not want their God to be accused as being man-made, i.e. conditioned by humans plus being inferior in any way.

Qualities are only described by humans which is conditional, but God-by-itself is purely unconditional to anything else. God is totally unconditional - see dictionary meaning below, plus note that is what theists would expect their God to be.

I don’t think you have searched enough.

Note point 15 of this link;
dictionary.com/browse/absolute
the absolute - something that is free from any restriction or condition.

That is the same as totally unconditional.

If you go down the link, British Dictionary definitions for absolute you will find this
noun (sometimes not capital)

  1. (philosophy)
    the ultimate basis of reality
    that which is totally unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, perfect, or complete

Get it?

Relative certainty in this case is not related to ‘a priori knowledge’.
Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system.
1 + 1 = 2 is relative certain but only relative to the decimal system and not the binary or other counting system.

Nope I did not claim it to be axiomatic.
The point is my proof stand by itself based on reason.

I am stating in the case of ‘God exists’ theists and agnostics are using “crude reasoning” to jump to the conclusion ‘God exists’ because they were compelled by some psychological impulses to do so.

One good example of crude reasoning in contrast to higher-reasoning is Hume’s Problem of Cause and Effect. Common sense and crude reasoning conclude marble A knocked and caused marble B to move. Using a higher level of reasoning, Hume disagreed and assert the conclusion of cause and effect is due to psychology, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
Theists perceive creations and jump to the conclusion there must be an ultimate creator, i.e. God exists. This is crude reasoning driven by primal psychological impulses.

May be yours is 95% God does not exist and 5% God exists.
In this case there is still that 5% of ‘God exists’ as a positive claim.

Note the theists’ God exists is based on crude reasoning driven by psychology, i.e.
Creations perceived, cause and effect, therefore God exists.
Since the idea of God emerged there is no convincing proofs to support the idea God exists within an empirical rational reality.

On the other hand, I have used higher order thinking to show;

  1. God is an impossibility - based on reason [higher] only
  2. The idea of God can also emerge out of mental illness, brain damage, drugs, chemical, electronic wave stimulation, meditations, etc. - based on empirical evidence.
  3. The idea of God is based on an existential crisis, thus psychological.
  4. There are Eastern spirituality who recognized the fact of 3 and deal with it non-theistically.
  5. The possibility of dealing with the existential crisis neurally and replacing theistic religions

You will note my higher order thinking is more sound than the theists’ crude reasoning reinforced by faith.

That is interesting because Prismatic’s logic seems to be that if you find flaws in his syllogism, then it must be because you are a theist at least a little bit. If you were an atheist, then you would not see any flaws.

Pris,

You speak as though there are different rules of language that apply when discussing God. IMV, God is a thing amongst other things, so I see no need for the use of unique language when discussing it’s attributes. I’ll stick to what I stated re God’s perfection.

Fair point. Hmm … :-k No, I don’t. I don’t understand what “totally unconditioned” means. Perhaps you could provide an example of that term in use which isn’t related to God? Not something that you think, but an actual quote. Then I might be able to understand what it means, implies and how it applies to your definition of God.

I noticed that the term “perfect” is listed amongst those things which are absolute from your quotation. Did you find any definitions of “perfect” that did not describe an absolute?

You stated, having claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge:

Then you stated:

Which is contradictory.

Hence, whilst I may not be right, I will not accept this as a definition of “relative certainty”, but thank you for attempting to explain. Also, 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 5, are axiomatic in the way that you’ve used them to make your points, not “relatively certainties”.

One definition I found of relative was “1. having meaning or significance only in relation to something else; not absolute:” which seems to reflect what I stated. So I’ll stick with my description of “relative certainty” until proven otherwise.

But note, I do agree with this to a degree: “Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system.”

Wouldn’t that mean that your argument/syllogism is self-evidently correct? You’ve claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge. If that is the case then it is self-evident or IOW axiomatic. You said yourself that you are relying on an axiom (although you called it a relative certainty), 1+1 = 5 being self-evidently incorrect. What a priori knowledge is there that isn’t axiomatic? “all bachelors are unmarried” is clearly axiomatic. Do you think that your argument/syllogism has a similar degree of veracity to “all bachelors are unmarried”?

This is a matter of opinion.

Wrong again in this respect. If someone believes that God is a possibility, you cannot attribute them with making a positive claim until they actually make one. A belief is not a claim. Not knowing if God exists, is not a belief, a negative claim or a positive claim. Agnosticism is not knowing.

I’m not going to get into a discussion about “higher order thinking” or “higher refined reason” if that is how you assess yourself then fine.

phyllo,

I agree, and I would go a step further than that. Due to his claims about using “higher refined reason” and “higher order thinking” it would seem that if someone disagrees with him regardless of their world view, then not only are they incorrect, but their reasoning is also “crude”. Hence it seems to me, that he has set an impossibly high standard for himself. Such that being wrong, has necessarily become his enemy.

Yin is the north, dark side of the mountain while yang is the south, sunny side. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang#Meanings

The only way I can see a priori being a requirement for posteriori is if a priori engenders the subject (brain) through evolution which then enables the subject to view the object (empiricism, deduction). But the way Kant defines it makes no sense to me since he divides the object (empiricism, deduction) into 2 parts for no obvious reason other than to complicate matters.

So it would seem that Kant has ignored yin, then proceeded to divide yang into two parts and achieved notoriety for it, though not for his blunder.

I tried Kant once and it was so incredibly boring that I gave up on it. It reminds me of sitting in a tree waiting for a deer to walk by. It’s far easier to simply ask you :wink:

Well then define humans. When did the first human come about? Evolution is a smooth continuous transition and there was never a point where we could say here is a human which came from this non-human. It’s just like asking what was the day when you became old? It’s another slippery slope since we can trace our ancestry back to a protoplasm globule and in fact, if you, for instance, believe the big bang, then we could say that we are the big bang still coming on. That singularity is grandpa.

What if 1+1=10? (binary) What if 1+1=1? (1 lump of clay added to another lump is 1 lump of clay.) And if 1+1=2 is so easy to understand, then which animals understand it and which do not? Does a gazelle realize there are 2 lions chasing it rather than 1? If so, is that empiricism or deduction?

If you throw a box of toothpicks on the floor and Rainman instantly knows the quantity of toothpicks, is it by empiricism or deduction? When idiot savants multiply ridiculously large numbers together in their heads, is it by empiricism or deduction? The only reason I know 7x7=49 is that I memorized it because I had to write it down a bazillion times in 3rd grade. To my knowledge, I have never deduced 7x7.

For a long time, humanity had no concept of zero because you can’t have zero cows. If you have no cows, there is no need to write it down. livescience.com/27853-who-i … -zero.html So is 1-1=0 a priori or not? After all, there are currently zero pink elephants chasing me.

Yes, in order to have a debate about what forms life, we need to have a differentiation between life and nonlife because the debate absolutely depends on such differentiation. Isn’t that silly? Let’s divide the room just so we can argue about who gets which side. Have philosophers gotten so bored that they’re resorting to such?

Pris,

I agree that your syllogism is based upon your reasoning, but I don’t agree with the conclusion of your syllogism or the premises it proposes. I don’t know if God exists, so I wouldn’t claim that God’s existence is an impossibility, certainly not based upon the premise of “perfection”. From your perspective God doesn’t exist, so you are effectively claiming to have proven a negative.

Nah…
Kant did not ignore Yin. Kant explored Yin and Yang in depth [note Kant’s antinomy] then dig deep into the Tao and conclude they are all illusory albeit can be useful psychologically.

Yes we can trace humans back to the first singled-cell living things. But this is off topic to the earlier point.

1 + 1 = 2 is a priori based on the decimal system and it is only applicable to humans only.
From the a posteriori perspective 1 + 1 = whatever, based on a qualified criteria. This is why you refer to binary system, 1 lump of clay, whatever Rainman knows, etc.
So can we ground the various answers given?
The solution is to differentiate a priori and a posteriori.

As I had mentioned before we need to complement dualism with monism without being dogmatic with one side only.
Note dualism is critical for survival, i.e. need to differentiate between enemy and non-enemy, threat or no-threat, poisonous and non-poisonous, good or evil and the likes. What is critical is one should not be dogmatic with one side only but see the opposites within the bigger picture [holism].

Btw, are you familiar with the Buddhist’s Two-Truths and Tetralemma [Four Truths*]?

  • not the Four Noble Truths.

I am not proving a negative.
I am not proving ‘God does not exist.’

‘God is an impossibility’ meant one cannot even raise the question of whether ‘God exists or not?’ i.e. moot and a non-starter.
When it is moot and a non-starter, there is no need for me to prove ‘God does not exist’ at all.

I have mentioned the process of gaining knowledge where one must start with reasoning and abducting a reasonable hypothesis to be proven and justified so that it [if proven] can be accepted as a theory [e.g. speculated theory like the Big Bang] or knowledge if JTB [e.g. Oxygen is a product of photosynthesis].

‘God is an impossibility’ [via reason] meant the question of God is not feasible at all to qualify even as a hypothesis [via abductive reasoning] within empirical-rational reality.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

This is a case of higher-reasoning ‘killing’ crude-reasoning.
Abductive reason is a form of crude-reasoning and ‘the question of God’ cannot even pass this stage of crude-reasoning.

The only basis how and why ‘the question of God [illusory]’ can arise is due to psychological compulsion within the brain/mind of theists.

Pris,

Hmm … :-k If God doesn’t exist, then proving that it is impossible for God to exist is proving a negative. Because, in proving that it is impossible for God to exist, you would also be proving that God does not exist - it is implied. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t see that? So if you had proven that it is impossible for God exist, by definition you would have also proven that God does not exist a priori. Viz, you would have proven a negative.

IMV, you haven’t shown that God is an impossibility. I’ve argued why I think that you haven’t and you’ve argued why you think that you have. If we continue it will become circular, so I think this is a good time to close our discussion on this matter. I’m not going to debate it any more (if I can resist :slight_smile: ).

So you do genuinely believe that anyone who believes that there’s a possibility that God exists is using “crude reasoning” whilst you, by claiming that it is impossible for God to exist are using “higher refined reason” or “higher order thinking” because of the mode of reasoning that leads to each of the diametrically opposed conclusions. That is very interesting.

There’s no need to continually restate your points in a discussion. I understood that is the conclusion you’ve arrived at the 1st time you stated it.

Regardless, it has certainly been an interesting discussion. Thanks for your time.

Phyllo,

Precisely and so people tend to build up their own personal matrixes, a matter of their own choice, despite what cannot be seen and despite how discombobulated our minds may be at the thought of this idea/ideal, except for those who DO live in the matrix.

I can agree with this in part. This is a deist’s thinking and I find it to be more rational than that of the theist’s thinking; to wit, that the God who exists (for lack of a better word) is lovingly aware, compassionate, empathetic, ad continuum…

Perhaps the very first thing that needs to be done is to drop the gender identity.
We do this even with non-gender things, like ships, cars, ad continuum.
I suppose that it may be because we need to sense or to have some form of intimate relationship with a God or even with our things (the reason we are so attached to them) although we can never really know if our so-called relationship with a personal God is “real” except through our choice to make it so. (the matrix again),
We are all basically sucklings in some form or other.

Perhaps the problem is with the word “God”. Maybe that too ought to be dropped though I have no idea what to put in its stead.

Your keyword is “may”. Can we prove, really, that the theists or the deists or the atheists are correct or incorrect?
I do not think so in light of all of the variables that can be seen.

I think that all we can say is “maybe” or “perhaps” or “possibly”. But what do we do? We simplify it by making a judgment call, the one which best suits our purposes/agendas and allows us a sense of security.
A child on her way to school is run down by a drunkard. The child dies but the drunkard lives.

Too many unanswered questions.

A bit of serendipity, a bit of synchronicity, a bit of magic in the world.
As I said, we are all sucklings, in some form or other.

Personally, I do not think that we will ever get to the bottom of the God question.

I think he ignored yin but wasn’t aware that he had. Just because he studied yin and yang doesn’t mean he missed seeing yin (building of the brain) and yang (brain as subject that views object which is empiricism and deduction).

Just to reiterate:

Yin = all of evolution from big bang until your brain becomes a subject capable of observing or deducing anything.
Yang= brain is subject capable of observing the evolution that engendered it.

Instead of seeing that, Kant cut yang in half then called one half yin and the other yang (empiricism and deduction) while being oblivious to the fact of yin or evolution (for obvious reasons since it hadn’t been theorized yet since Darwin was born 5 years after Kant died).

I think it’s perfectly relevant and necessary.

Again I must insist that you define “human”. Reify, man, reify! It’s a little ironic that I am the one claiming there is no such thing as a human and you are the one drawing divisions to produce “things” when there are no things lol. Isn’t that funny? :wink:

Now I see… you’re reifying! You’re drawing lines between 1+1=10 and 1+1=2 and claiming one is innate and the other isn’t. You’re dividing a continuum and claiming one is a thing and the other is a thing distinct from the other thing.

Dualism says heads and tails whereas monism says there is just the coin, but there must also be a distinction between what is coin and what is not, so we’re back to dualism. You cannot have an experience without a nonexperience to contrast it and give it meaning.

There is value to recognizing that there is no differentiation between yin and yang and there is value to recognizing that there is; we don’t need to make a religion out of one or the other. Practice the Bruce Lee style of no style… the Jeet Kune Do of philosophy. I’m not a dualist nor a nondualist because I can go both ways. Both are true and not true :wink:

What do you mean by survival? As opposed to not-survival? lol! There is no way out of dualism.

Dogamtism (aka clinging to styles) is bad.

Not sure about the two truths.

The default is one cannot prove a negative.
So my approach is, in the case of ‘God exists’ [positive not negative claim] one cannot even start to raise a hypothesis for such a positive claim, i.e. moot, a non-starter.

You argued about the term ‘perfection’ which I have countered and stated the critical word is ‘absolute’ or to emphasize “absolutely absolute” to differentiate from relative absolutes like absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.
Because God has to the most unique to theists, we have to use the extreme most terms to differentiate God from humans and other living entities.

I have given my explanation between what is “crude reasoning” and “higher refined reasoning.” E.g. note the higher refined reasoning of Kant, Hume, Nietzche, Heidegger, and the likes in comparison with the “crude reasoning” of the lay philosopher and the common people.

It is for general sake.
The “psychological” point do not sink in with most and many theists.

Pris,

That doesn’t seem to follow. If you proved that it is impossible for God to exist, then by default God never existed, a priori. It doesn’t matter about your “approach” because it doesn’t alter the fact. Putting the default aside for the moment, the problem is that you’re making a positive claim about something which has not (or cannot) be proven either way, thus it is a possibility that God doesn’t exist. So factually speaking, if God does not exist, you can’t really avoid that your argument/syllogism would be proving a negative.

That’s fair enough. IMV, God is a thing amongst other things, so I don’t see the need to differentiate or use language in a different way when describing it’s proposed attributes. There’s is no need discuss God from the theist’s reified perspective if we are trying to establish the facts via reason (a priori). Using extreme terms won’t alter the conclusion and we should remain within the correct/accepted use of language in order to make understandable points.

The problem is that when you attribute “crude reasoning” to an entire subset of people, it evidently means that you have a preconceived notion of being superior to them because you claim to use “higher refined reason”. You then appeal the reasoning of past notable/famous philosophers to reinforce that opinion. Therefore substantiating your view (to yourself) that you are using higher refined reasoning and that theist’s reasoning is crude. It is very problematic and offensive.

Doesn’t sink in? Why should theists (or anyone) accept your speculative claims on this issue? You can’t force people to be convinced. Perhaps it needs to sink in with you that they just don’t agree with you and are entitled not to.

If ‘you’ want to view it that way, that is your discretion.
What I am more concern is the result, i.e. the question of ‘God exists’ cannot be raised as a hypothesis at all.

God is a thing in the broadest sense.
To be precise the term ‘God’ is at most only an idea [philosophy] and in not even a concept. The idea of God when reified is an illusion.
The only valid perspective of God is from the theists’ perspective and it is theists who uplift God to its highest possible qualities of an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God which is a very critical point for my argument.
My argument do not work if God has only relative perfection.

Isn’t it true the notable philosophers I mentioned were more refined thinkers than the lay philosophers?

Note the most theists can come up with to support their claim of God is ‘faith’ which is obviously inferior to critical thinking. This is so evident and factual.

1.One time 99% of people thought ‘the Earth is flat’ and the Sun orbits round the Earth then. It is true this majority of people were offended if anyone were to counter their views and some critiques of the ‘wrong’ view were killed.

Anyone who feel offended at present if they are told their thinking ‘God exists’ is based on crude reasoning is the same as those above in 1. above.

I don’t expect most theists to agree with me on this due to strong confirmation bias.
I have nevertheless given evidence and explain how the belief in a God is driven by psychology. Buddhism, and others has also recognized this fact and deal with the underlying existential crisis psychologically.

Pris,

From which it follows that:

  1. God does not exist.
  2. That God never existed.
  3. That God cannot exist.
  4. That you’ve proven that.
  5. That you’ve proven the negative.

I find this to be a relatively simple logical deduction based upon what you’ve claimed.

I’m not sure how to interpret the term “refined” in the sense of thinking. I think that the notable philosophers were perhaps more intelligent and/or more educated than lay philosophers, which led to them having greater insights. But I wouldn’t claim that their thinking is more “refined”.

I don’t know about that? Granted they are different modes of thinking and can lead to completely different conclusions about the same subject, but I don’t think that faith is “inferior” to critical thinking.

That is a generalisation. In order for this claim to have any veracity, it would have to be shown that God does not exist. And even if it were to be shown that God doesn’t exist, it doesn’t as a rule mean that any and all types of reasoning which posited the existence of God were “crude”, that is your value judgement; I think there are sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. The fact that people arrive at incorrect conclusions, does not necessarily mean that their reasoning was “crude”. The problem I see, is that you seem to think that wrong = “crude” and right = “refined”, but all types of reasoning can arrive at both correct and incorrect conclusions. There is no infallible person, and therefore no infallible (perfect) type of reasoning. No matter how intelligent or educated a person is, whether they’re a theist, agnostic or atheist, they can be wrong.

Fact? It is at best an educated guess. Theists don’t need to be exhibiting confirmation bias to disagree with your theory. They have every right to reject your conclusion on the basis of choice.

Who says that theists don’t use critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion?

Some very clever, educated and able theists have made arguments for the existence of God. Theists are not all dumb bumpkins.

phyllo,

I agree. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.