God is an Impossibility

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.

What wrong with ‘subjectivism’ [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

As for Solipsism, it is an incoherent view.
iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
So don’t be philosophically small minded and bang on this point to counter anything.

I have often refer to ‘Reality’ in general as “All there is” but it is meaningless within an empirical-rational reality.

You can define “The One Reality” as above but only in thoughts but such is not possible and realizable within an empirical-rational reality.
This is the same with my claim re God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

I have defined reality in this case as conditional upon a Framework and System, so there can be as many realities as the number of defined Framework and System. The most credible reality is that of the scientific reality which is conditional. This is scientific reality one can grip upon, whereas your definition above is baseless and groundless without any hinges to hold onto.

What is wrong with Solipsism?
Your “intersubjective consensus” is merely Social Solipsism.

Precisely.

You’re a bit meaningless within an empirical-rational reality.

And there is an example.

Meaningless scapegoat clauses … [-( :icon-rolleyes:

a perfectly static vacuum- an area devoid of motion- can’t exist because, the universe has a constant course of energy radiating.

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: “John sees Mary”. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: “Mary sees John” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary” (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: “John sees Mary, and Mary sees John” (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or “John and Mary see each other” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John” (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or “John and Mary are seen by each other” (O-P-S) … or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not “in fashion”, then this does not mean that they have vanished.

Note we are discussing Philosophy as the main ‘subject’ and not linguistics. Note the limitations of Language Games [Wittgenstein].

Even with linguistics when analyzed philosophically,

“John [subject] sees Mary [object]” at t1, location X
"Mary [subject] sees John [object]"at t1 location X

Now from a factual analysis, at the same time [to most exact nano-second] in the same place and conditions, one can clearly understand John and Mary are ‘subject’ and ‘object’ at the same time and conditions. There are also two subjects and two objects existing at the same time and conditions.

In a deeper philosophical analysis,
John [subject] can see Mary subjectively or objectively.

If John sees Mary subjectively, it is only his subjective views, i.e. based on his own conditions. In this case, it is possible for John in his subjective POV to see Mary as a snake [nevertheless still an ‘object’], if John suffer from kind of mental problem.
“The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_W … _for_a_Hat
Thus the individual will subjectively experience and cognize things from his/her individual conditions and experiences.

For John to see Mary objectively as a living human person and not something else, there is a need for intersubjective interaction and consensus to agree what a living human person is.
Factually, if one use a electron microscope to see ‘Mary’ then the fact is there is only a bundle of molecules. A blind bat will cognize Mary in terms of a sonar image.
How John cognized Mary objectively as a living human person with various features is based on an inherent process of intersubjective consensus [conducted by our generic DNA] within humanity.

Thus subjectivity is one person’s view.
Objectivity is many peoples’ shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.
Note this is grounded on the DNA which core is generic to all humans.
The most reliable objective knowledge is scientific theories and they are based on intersubjective consensus after individual subjective conjectures are refined/polished.

Note Subjectivity from the philosophical context;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy

Note Intersubjectivity in Philosophy:

Inter subjectivity is fundamental to science because single first person perspectives can not be accepted
as valid. As there is no means by which they can be tested for bias. It does not equate to objective truth
however. But it does reduce as much as possible any subjective interpretations of observable phenomena

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

And my example “John sees Mary” includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged “critique” does not change anything. Furthermore, your “critique” is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a “social” situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become “designed” (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

You are missing the point again, and your alleged “critique” is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”.

There is only one reality.

It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

But philosophically one need to understand the limitations of language. You don’t seem to get this point. I suggest you brush up on the Philosophy of Linguistic [as wide as possible] and note Wittgenstein’s Language Games. Note Chomsky versus others.

Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

My point is,
your “It is an objective fact that there are subjects” is based on intersubjectivity.

I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me ‘what is the really real apple on the table’?

Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.

And note Russell’s point;

There is no real objective table but rather an intersubjective one depending on the Framework and System [Leibniz, Berkeley, Science, etc.] relied upon.

Subconsciously your know you cannot defend your position, that is why you are resorting to derogatory remarks rather than presenting credible arguments. I expect James and yourself will continue to condemn me ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments. I suggest you read and reflect wider and deeper on the whole range of philosophy [relevant to this forum].

Then you should understand why talking to you is pointless.
You invent your own language to suit to your sermons (not to mention ignoring any and all contradiction).

I don’t give a damn on the above.
If there is any credible counter argument [from anyone] against the OP, I will welcome and respond.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.

So far you have countered with the following;

  1. No such thing as absolute perfection - I have trashed it.
  2. God is never assigned ‘perfection’ - I have trashed it

As i have said, you invent and you lie.

The above one-liner is evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity and capacity re this point. Check with ‘Snark’ who is also very good with such ‘tantrums.’

You might want to note, even count, how many disagree with you and eventually see no point in trying to reason with you. They have all explained precisely why. You ignore and then lie about how you defeated them. Arrested Adolescence…

As I had stated I don’t give a damn with your above opinions.

If any, fine, but my main purpose is I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is a discussion forum, those who agree [if any] are not likely to be involved in a serious discussion on this issue.

What is important to me is for someone to raise credible counters against my arguments. I appreciate you and others have raised objections, but they are not strong ones.

While me and Prismatic don’t agree on much as an atheist I also believe that existence of God is impossible in terms of physical evidence existing separate from mind where faith or belief is not grounds of evidence at all.

As a theist, I agree.

Well if that is so, how do you trust and rely on faith alone? That would be my next question.

You don’t. Loyal to a fault; if you never doubt your faith, it’s not faith and then it becomes faith in your own self, which is just as unreliable, and trust? Some times the only reason we trust is because we have no choice.

It’s like relying on just one sense, take eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin; let’s talk about trusting your heart, or your wits, your gut or having a spine; having a pair. Rely on just one alone? What do you rely on when all are knocked out, what then but an invisible hand and what if that doesn’t even cover at some times? What is it are you looking for?