God is an Impossibility

In science if a hypothesis cannot be subject to potential falsification then it is deemed to be invalid
And this would be the case where the hypothesis in question was to determine the existence of God

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective means by which this can be falsified or verified
As an atheist I dont think God exists because of lack of evidence but I cannot be absolutely certain of this

So any one claiming certainty either way is just expressing a subjective opinion masquerading as objective truth
Objective truth pertaining to physical reality has to be capable of verification else it is no more than an assertion
Of course it could still be true but without such verification it would be rather presumptuous to assume that it was

As a theist, I agree that “God” cannot be proved via reason or empirical evidence, but “lack of evidence” is not a valid reason to disbelieve. Evidence requires boundaries and boundaries indicate limitation. How many theists will agree that God is so bounded? Asking for evidence is like asking if God can make a rock too heavy to lift: it’s not a paradox, it’s nonsensical.

Lack of evidence is a valid reason to disbelieve if evidence is the actual criteria for belief. But then it would no longer be belief as
it would have an empirical basis to it. God by definition has to be bounded since logic demands it. Now some try to get around this
by claiming God transcends logic but only because it conveniently avoids disproving his possible existence by logical argumentation

It seems that you are not capable of reading either.

I have been saying for a very long time and over and over again that your statements have nothing to do with theism in the first place. You are wrong because of your logical fallacies - based on your false definitions, your false premises and thus your false conclusions.

You are not capable of understanding this, because your main problem is a logical one (thus also a psychological one).

To you, your delusion and your angst are more important than any kind of logic. Psychologically said, you are full of anxiety or angst: you even horribly fear God and theists. Your opening post and all your other posts show clearly that theists, antitheists or atheists are not needed in order to see that you are wrong, that your problem has nothing to do with theism, antitheism and atheism in the first place, because your problem is primarily and mainly a logical and thus also a psychological problem.

What I have been saying here in your thread and in all your other threads is based on logic. Your problem is logic (psychologic problems included of course).


Note:

You say or at least suggest that you are against monotheists in particular.

The typical monotheisms (more accurately called “henotheisms”) are Judaism and Islam. No other religion is monotheistic (more accurately called “henotheistic”).

Christianity is no purely monotheistic religion, because the Christian God can be (1) God Father, (2) God Son, (3) God Holy Ghost, and he has a (4) mother too, the so-called “Mother of God”. (4 does not equal 1.) If a god has a mother, then this has nothing to do with monotheism; if a god can be three different gods, then this has nothing to do with monotheism. (3 does not equal 1.) So Christianity is more polytheism than a monotheism.

Polytheistic gods do not have to be and are not perfect or, as you say, “absolutely perfect”. A god does not have to be such a god - all polytheistic religions and also all (namely: two [see above]) monotheistic religions show this clearly. The god of the Jews and the Muslims is not absolutely good, but more evil than good. And polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: “monotheism”). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are “undying humans”, so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said “undying humans” as the said “projections of the humans”. So, their gods were not “absolutely perfect” - their gods were much more unperfect than perfect.

So your claim that a god must be “absolutely perfect” is nonsense, based on your delusions and angst. God can be a principle, God can be the first mover, God can be the first cause … etc., but God does not have to be “absolutely perfect”. An “absolutely perfect” God is your wishful thinking, based on your delusions and angst; if this were not so, then you would not do what you want to do because of your delusions and angst: attack him and the theists in order to get rid of your delusions and angst. So, all your statements that are based on logical fallacies have primarily and mainly to do with your delusions and your angst.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it has only one God. God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations
of the same God. They are three in one not three separate from each other. Furthermore the First Commandment clearly states there is only one God

Prism, we need for you to define your term, “realities”.

I know very well what you mean, and according to many but not all Christians you are right; but people of the Jewish and the Islamic religion do not agree on the statement that the trinity you are speaking of is a “manifestation” of one god and thus of monotheism. In addition, they do not agree on the statement that a god has or should have a mother, because this would mean more than one god, at least two gods. If you visit certain countries of Europe, you will see that their Christian cult has more to do with the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God than with God himself or his son Jesus (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries) or his Holy Ghost (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries). Christianity is not only characterized by division of powers (see: the Christians’ trinity and Mother of God), but also by the separation of its Church and the state (laicism) as well as by peacefulness and humanity.

The First Commandment clearly belongs to the Jewish religion - regardless whether it is also accepted by Christians or not.

But this is more a subject of another thread, for example the following one: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187389.

Your views above are too shallow and narrow. I agree there are various forms of monotheism, but what is critical here is the substance or essence. Note ‘monotheism’

In essence, Monotheism is the believe in ONE God that stand by itself [Islam] or overrides whatever sub-gods or forms of God that are believed, e.g. Christianity, Hindu Brahman.

I have already explained why the idea of God as believed and psychologically intended will and must ultimately gravitate and be reduced to an absolutely perfect God.
It has to be because no rational [basic] will accept their God to be inferior to another, i.e. having their god having to kiss the ass of another more inferior God.

The most rational of men, the ancient Greeks, were ok with inferior gods who held traits of jealousy, anger, violence, immortality, and the like.

They were more human, oh so human, the highest god was the cause of their fall. Does this imply an anthropomorphic schizophrenia between Philosophers and the gods of the common man?

As I had stated before, what is real is always conditioned to the Framework and Systems that reality emerges or is actualized.

Here is an exercise for you to understand ‘what is reality?’

  1. Take a very large room and is sufficiently tight.
  2. 1000 cc of a certain liquid [water] is put in the middle of the room
  3. I ask, what is the reality of that liquid under the following conditions;

a. Normal room temperature -liguid
b. The temperature in the room is raised to 150 degrees centigrade -steam
c. The temperature is slowly reduced to 10 degree C - mist
d. Reduce to normal room temperature - liguid
e. Reduce temperature to minus 10 degree C - ice.
f. Viewing the water with an electron microscope

The question is, what is the reality of that substance we put in the middle of the room.

The answer is, it is;
a. Real liguid of water
b. Real steam
c. Real Mist
d. Real ice
e. Real hydrogen and real oxygen molecules tightly packed
f. Real quarks …

So what is the reality of that substance that was placed in the middle of the room?
The answer is the reality of that substances varies with the conditions of the room.
That cannot be ONE Reality for every thing.
Whatever [including the Reality of realities] you conceive as reality is always conditioned by a Framework and System, thus there is no unconditional absolute reality.
If you think otherwise, show me how can you go about proving there is only ONE reality!

A living alien who lives an environment that has one of the condition permanently will never be able to experience and know other realities besides the only one that it is exposed to.

I have used ‘water’ as an example which is obvious to those with some scientific knowledge.
But all ‘things’ within what we call ‘reality’ are conditioned within the above principles, it is just that many things are seemingly solid and ‘permanent.’

Here’s Russell on the Philosophical persepctive of Reality’ and he questioned whether there is a ‘Real’ table in the first place.

There is no ‘ONE REALITY’, there are only realities that are real subject to qualified-conditions.

Why you think there is only ONE Reality because you are stuck with customs and habits [Hume] and where you are so dogmatic about it is because of psychological angst.

Do you understand what a definition is?

I didn’t ask to define “Reality”. I know that one.

I asked for a definition ofrealities” (plural). The definition of “Reality” has no plural to it, so your “realites” must be something different.

Reality = something that exist, existence.
Kant had argued ‘exist’ is not a predicate.
Existence is always predicated on something.
Therefore reality is always predicated on something.

As above,
Reality = the state of things as they actually exist
I have demonstrated there are many states of things which ‘things’ actually exist depending on the Framework and Systems a reality is realized.
As with the many states [conditions], therefore there are many “realities.”

Note I have already demonstrated to you the different conditional realities?

I had requested, show me how can you prove there is ONLY ONE REALITY?

I really don’t care what Kant argued, or rather what you think that Kant argued.

Well, then you misunderstand the word “exist”.

In your explanation about water having many POSSIBLE states, you failed to point out that water can only be in one of those states at any particular time (not that part of the water can’t be in a different state than another). When you have steam, you do not have ice (except as a different portion then it would be a combination).

Reality is whatever exists AT THAT TIME, not whatever might exist at some other time.

So are you trying to talk about Bohr’s many worlds ontology, wherein every possibility supposedly exists in a “parallel universe”?

Well that would be rather trivial. Something either exists or it doesn’t. Wouldn’t you agree?
If it exists then it is a part of reality (by definition). If it doesn’t exist, it is not a part of reality.
Therefore
ALL that exists = existence = Reality = one Reality.

Water can exist in three states as steam or water or ice. Each state represents a different reality as pertaining to water. But these states can
simultaneously exist as well just not in the same space at the same time. Water does not appear in one state everywhere due to temperature
variations on Earth. All these specific realities are a part of the absolute reality which is the totality of existence. Also known as the Universe

I think that might have solidified his confusion.

This is the point why your philosophical views are so narrow and shallow.
Kant’s argument re ‘Existence is not a predicate’ is one very notable argument on the related topic. You need to understand [not necessary agree] to get my point.

What???

I am not emphasizing on possibilities.
Many such realities are already in existence all over the world [or in the Universe] wherever the conditions exist.
Whatever is H2O [scientifically] such can exist as liquids, clouds in the sky, mists in the cold hills, steam in a boiler, ice in the Arctic and wherever the temperature drop below 0, thus depending on the condition H20 is embedded in AT THE SAME TIME anywhere in the Universe.

Say, a living-thing living within a planet of gas, clouds and steam, mist will never understand the reality of liquid water. A fish living in the deepest part of the ocean will never experience H20 as steam, mists, clouds or ice.

So there are different realities to H20 [same or different H20 molecules] depending on the conditions H20 is subjected to.
Are there any real permanent H20.
No! H2O can be broken into Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms.
Hydrogen & Oxygen atoms can be broken into protons and electron, to quarks, etc.

Same Time?
Say we have a very small drop of water.
If three people are looking at it at the same time, one with normal sight, another looking through an electron microscope, another a more power electron microscope.
At a fixed specific time and conditions, the observers reported the following real observations;

  1. A small drop of water
  2. 100 molecules of H20
  3. 200 hydrogen atoms & 100 oxygen atoms

So which is the real thing at that fixed specific time?
All the above observations are real to the observers but they have to be qualified to the instruments they used to observe whatever.
None of the three observers can claim theirs is the absolute real thing they observed except by their qualifications.

So you tell me what is the REAL thing that has the quality of H20 or water?

There is no way you can ever nail down that really real thing or that ONE REALITY because such an idea is an impossibility.

=;

Don’t try to fool me with your deception.
Where did that ‘one’ come from??

If it exists it can only be part of a qualified reality and there can be many qualified realities.
There is no absolute reality that is unqualified and totally unconditional.

Note my explanation to the concept of many realities as qualified to various conditions which can be easily verified and proven.
There cannot be ‘ONE reality,’ you are pulling it out of air.

So here you are defining “a reality” as “any portion of all reality”.

And with that, you are defining “a reality” as “whatever an observer reports”.
Subjectivism (learn the word for the next time someone asks). And its just a hair’s breadth from Solipsism.

Seriously? It takes a pretty serious idiot to not be able to figure that one out.

[list]“You’re not a human. You are just cells.
Oh wait. You are not cells. You are just molecules.
Oh no, no. You are not molecules. You are just atoms.
No, no. You are not atoms, you are just subatomic particles.
No, no, no. You are not subatomic particles, you are just energy.
Now I see. You are just a battery.
Would you charge my cellphone for me?”
:icon-rolleyes:
[/list:u]

So your definition of “realities” is “any portions of all Reality or observations of such portions.”

How many “realities” are there?
I imagine you would claim an infinity of them.

Our definition of “The One Reality” would then be “the total collection of all realities” (using your definition of “realities”).

Your views are too shallow and narrow. You have absolutely no argument at all, because your statements are hollow phrases. There is nothing behind it. You have merely proven that you have proven nothing at all, that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.

It seems that you have not read my post or, as I already said before, that you are not capable of reading. Try to understand that your above quote and commentary on it do not concern the central statement of my text in my post . So, here you are again too shallow and narrow.

You have explained nothing except the fact that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.

An absolutely perfect God is not needed. The Ancient Greek religion worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.

The Ancient Greeks were not “the most rational of men”, but they did indeed not need an absolutely perfect God. Their gods were more like the Ancient Greek humans themselves. Their gods were projections of Ancient Greek humans. Their religion worked perfectly. So, the religion (and not God) must be a perfect one to them. Yes.

Not only the Ancient Greek religion gives evidence that an “absolutely perfect” (Prismatic) God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. It worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.

The henotheistic/monotheistic religions give evidence too that an “absolutely perfect” God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. Each God of the each henotheistic/monotheistic religion is not and does not have to be “absolutely perfect”.

So, Prismatic’s pseudo argument or bogus argument that “absolute perfection is impossible” (first “premise” - which is false), that “God must be absolutely perfect” (second “premise” - which is false), so that “God is an impossibility” (“conclusion” - which is false), is an absolutely perfect case of a logical fallacy. (1) Absolute perfection is not impossible; (2) God does not have to be absolutely perfect; (3) God is not impossible. This can only be proven by logic, thus not by, for example, ethics or aesthetics or Prismatic’s schizoid delusions (see e.g.: “empirical possible multiple realities”).

[tab]Sources:

James, I need for you to take your definition of a term like “realities” and note how you connect the dots between the logic imparted in the definition, your understanding of the Real God, and instances out in the world of actual human interactions where both can be intertwined in order to make clearer the points that you raise.