God is an Impossibility

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:01 am

Snark wrote:Prisimatic is right about one thing: ontology — the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations — ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God.

I'm not seeing the truth of that. Can you explain a bit more detail? Why would a ontology necessarily lead to the existence of a "God"? Being an ontologist, I am a little curious.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:12 am

James S Saint wrote:
Snark wrote:Prisimatic is right about one thing: ontology — the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations — ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God.

I'm not seeing the truth of that. Can you explain a bit more detail? Why would a ontology necessarily lead to the existence of a "God"? Being an ontologist, I am a little curious.


The four main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that considers the physical universe and the nature of ultimate reality. It asks questions like, What is real? What is the origin of the world? What is beyond the stars? Your consideration of reality as an external creation or an internal construct can influence your metaphysical beliefs and perspectives and your teaching. Regardless of your definition of reality, the exploration and categorization of the physical universe form the foundation of several school subjects.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that considers how people come to learn what they know.
Derived from the Greek word episteme, meaning knowledge or understanding, epistemology refers to the nature and origin of knowledge and truth. Epistemology proposes that there are four main bases of knowledge: divine revelation, experience, logic and reason, and intuition. These influence how teaching, learning, and understanding come about in the classroom.

Axiology

Axiology is the branch of philosophy that considers the study of principles and values. These values are divided into two main kinds: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics is the questioning of morals and personal values. Aesthetics is the examination of what is beautiful, enjoyable, or tasteful. In axiology education is more than just about knowledge but also quality of life.

Logic

Logic is the branch of philosophy that seeks to organize reasoning. Students of logic learn how to think in a structurally sound manner. Logic has two types: deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves examining a general case, deducing a general set of rules or principles, and then applying these rules to specific cases. Inductive reasoning involves taking specific examples and considering the general principles, rules, or cases that caused them.
Source


Metaphysics is a very broad field, and metaphysicians attempt to answer questions about how the world is; ontology is a related sub-field that answers questions pertaining to what things exist in the world. An ontological narrative serves the same purpose as myth: it tells us how be in the world and how to relate to it. The prevailing modern myth is secular scientism -- a metaphysics devoid of living First Principles. It's rich in factual knowledge, but very, very poor in it ability to tell us how to live and relate.

Ships are safe in their harbors, but that's not what they're for. Once we knowingly set foot on a metaphysical path to discover the nature of Ultimate Reality, the reality of First Principles, there is the "danger" that we might want to find meaning in the quality of existence. And quality, being a matter of mind interpretation, represents an estimate of values and must, therefore, remain an experience of the individual. Interactions can be had between nonpersonal things, but not companionship. Companionship cannot be enjoyed unless both are persons. Only personalities can commune with each other. The concept of truth might possibly be entertained apart from personality, the concept of beauty may exist without personality, but the qualative concept of goodness is understandable only in relation to divine personality.

This is what Prismatic fears.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:46 pm

Snark wrote:Metaphysics is a very broad field, and metaphysicians attempt to answer questions about how the world is; ontology is a related sub-field that answers questions pertaining to what things exist in the world. An ontological narrative serves the same purpose as myth: it tells us how be in the world and how to relate to it. The prevailing modern myth is secular scientism -- a metaphysics devoid of living First Principles. It's rich in factual knowledge, but very, very poor in it ability to tell us how to live and relate.

Ships are safe in their harbors, but that's not what they're for. Once we knowingly set foot on a metaphysical path to discover the nature of Ultimate Reality, the reality of First Principles, there is the "danger" that we might want to find meaning in the quality of existence. And quality, being a matter of mind interpretation, represents an estimate of values and must, therefore, remain an experience of the individual. Interactions can be had between nonpersonal things, but not companionship. Companionship cannot be enjoyed unless both are persons. Only personalities can commune with each other. The concept of truth might possibly be entertained apart from personality, the concept of beauty may exist without personality, but the qualative concept of goodness is understandable only in relation to divine personality.

This is what Prismatic fears.

Well, that was very well put and in general would seem to be true. People do tend to either fall toward an anthropomorphic God or First Principle God. But I have to disagree that it is of necessity that values and quality of life cannot be understood through impersonal principles. Just because they didn't, does mean that we can't. My own Affectance Ontology bridges that gap, as has been brought up here in RM:AO - EM:DE.
.
.
Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology
.
.
Basically it is an extremely detailed map of principles concerning "how to get along with the universe" derived from "why the universe does what it does". It reveals the highest level of priority from which grand decisions can be made without losing one's way or getting lost in doubt or presumption within the maze of methods and moralities.

When fully grasped, it answers with certainty the age old question, "What should I/we do? And Why?" Thus ending unnecessary conflict, struggle, and suffering before it ever begins. Being so extremely comprehensive, RM:AO spews general principles and aphorisms concerning every topic. But unlike that great fiery ball in the sky, it is not merely an intensely bright light, but a floodlight of laser coherent illumination, lighting all terrains whether day or night.

As far as any one individual, each individual must step from where they are and thus have differing needs at different times even if intending the same goal.
.
.

And in here Where Does Meaning Come From?
.
.
.
Value is a mental construct, subjective and relative. Value is formed from a perception of hope and/or threat, PHT. If some situation appears to inspire hope, it is valued as positive. If a situation appears threatening, it is valued as negative. Positive and negative are always relative terms, both in the mental as well as the physical; positive "above" neutral and negative "below" neutral.

And just as PtA forms a propagating wave of changing PtA, PHT or Value in the mind forms propagating changes in value in the mind and consequential action (the physically existent). Such is witnessed as one thing becomes valuable merely because it is associated with or leads to another thing of value, on and on. Money is only valuable because it allows the purchase of something valuable that helps create a situation that is more valued, for whatever value related reason. All emotions, attitudes, inspirations, choice of relevance ("in-formation"), and meaning are formed from those actualizing, propagating PHT/Value waves within.

And That is where "meaning comes from".
.
.

And quite a few other threads.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:05 pm

James S Saint wrote:Well, that was very well put and in general would seem to be true. People do tend to either fall toward an anthropomorphic God or First Principle God. But I have to disagree that it is of necessity that values and quality of life cannot be understood through impersonal principles. Just because they didn't, does mean that we can't. My own Affectance Ontology bridges that gap, as has been brought up here in RM:AO - EM:DE.
.
.
Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology
.
.
Basically it is an extremely detailed map of principles concerning "how to get along with the universe" derived from "why the universe does what it does". It reveals the highest level of priority from which grand decisions can be made without losing one's way or getting lost in doubt or presumption within the maze of methods and moralities.

When fully grasped, it answers with certainty the age old question, "What should I/we do? And Why?" Thus ending unnecessary conflict, struggle, and suffering before it ever begins. Being so extremely comprehensive, RM:AO spews general principles and aphorisms concerning every topic. But unlike that great fiery ball in the sky, it is not merely an intensely bright light, but a floodlight of laser coherent illumination, lighting all terrains whether day or night.

As far as any one individual, each individual must step from where they are and thus have differing needs at different times even if intending the same goal.
.
.

And in here Where Does Meaning Come From?
.
.
.
Value is a mental construct, subjective and relative. Value is formed from a perception of hope and/or threat, PHT. If some situation appears to inspire hope, it is valued as positive. If a situation appears threatening, it is valued as negative. Positive and negative are always relative terms, both in the mental as well as the physical; positive "above" neutral and negative "below" neutral.

And just as PtA forms a propagating wave of changing PtA, PHT or Value in the mind forms propagating changes in value in the mind and consequential action (the physically existent). Such is witnessed as one thing becomes valuable merely because it is associated with or leads to another thing of value, on and on. Money is only valuable because it allows the purchase of something valuable that helps create a situation that is more valued, for whatever value related reason. All emotions, attitudes, inspirations, choice of relevance ("in-formation"), and meaning are formed from those actualizing, propagating PHT/Value waves within.

And That is where "meaning comes from".
.
.

And quite a few other threads.


Well, I guess I don't understand it. The highlighted are my concerns about your philosophy. The first has to do with certainty. Certainty is an illusion. It imprisons us and closes the doors of perception to the unlimited possibilities before us. Linked to the human need to belong, which is driven the fundamental anxiety Prismatic talks about, it establishes rivalrous interests. Read the article I linked to at Psychology Today.

While true to some extent, my second concern is that it has the same as problem Prismatic's idea of "evil": it rests firmly on a foundation of thin air. There's no there there. There's nothing to facilitate fellowship except personal interests.

The last fails to distinguish between values and things that have value. Values (for finite beings) are indeed relative and subjective, but relative to what? Values are utterly meaningless without an Absolute or ideal against which they can be measured.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:06 pm

Snark wrote:Well, I guess I don't understand it. The highlighted are my concerns about your philosophy.

No doubt. It takes considerably more than a superficial revue to understand such things, whether they be worth while or not.

Snark wrote:The first has to do with certainty. Certainty is an illusion.

Emm... certain about that, are you? Perhaps a presumptuous illusion?

Snark wrote: It imprisons us and closes the doors of perception to the unlimited possibilities before us. Linked to the human need to belong, which is driven the fundamental anxiety Prismatic talks about, it establishes rivalrous interests. Read the article I linked to at Psychology Today.

That is the second time I have noted you claim a falsehood based upon your prediction of how people would handle the thought; "If it leads to people behaving the foolish way that I think they will, then it must be a false theory."

Snark wrote:While true to some extent, my second concern is that it has the same as problem Prismatic's idea of "evil": it rests firmly on a foundation of thin air. There's no there there. There's nothing to facilitate fellowship except personal interests.

That one, I will have to completely disagree with and ask for your evidence.

Snark wrote:The last fails to distinguish between values and things that have value. Values (for finite beings) are indeed relative and subjective, but relative to what? Values are utterly meaningless without an Absolute or ideal against which they can be measured.

Actually, I explicitly pointed out both of those concerns and their relation to each other as well as to the make of the universe itself.

As is often the case, you appear to be guilty of your own accusations; you are claiming certainty that something can't be done and even the certainty that one can't be certain of anything such as to maintain the status quo "illusion".

But this isn't the thread to bandy this topic.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:33 pm

And the point being that the ontology did not lead to claims about a "God" character. Einstein's General Relativity is also an ontology, involving the warping of spacetime and makes no mention of God, nor does the Quantum Physics ontology of the Standard Model.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:48 pm

Well, either I don't understand what you're saying, or I'm seeing something you are not. (Beware of philosophy's hidden implications.)

As is often the case, you appear to be guilty of your own accusations: you, too, are claiming certainty. :angry-argument: Com'on, let's not be childish about it. Each of us is confident in what we believe. So what? I don't think either one of us do what so many others here do, which is to sit back and wait for truth to come to us in the form of evidence.

For any proposition, P: If

1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P (for example, believing it, rejecting it, or withholding judgement) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs,

2. You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and

3. You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P.

Then it is more rational for you Not to take that cognitive stance toward P.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:05 am

James S Saint wrote:
Einstein's General Relativity is also an ontology, involving the warping of spacetime and makes no mention of God, nor does the Quantum Physics ontology of the Standard Model.

You're conflating physics and metaphysics.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:17 am

Snark wrote:As is often the case, you appear to be guilty of your own accusations: you, too, are claiming certainty.

No, no. I didn't say that one cannot be certain. I teach quite the opposite. So no, I'm not guilty of my accusation in that way .. perhaps in some other way.

Snark wrote:
For any proposition, P: If

1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P (for example, believing it, rejecting it, or withholding judgement) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs,

2. You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and

3. You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P.

Then it is more rational for you Not to take that cognitive stance toward P.

All that said was "Without a reason, make no judgement."
Of course not (although a rarity to actually do).

Personally, I never expect anyone to accept anything that I say without me providing a reason. And more than that, if they do not accept something that I say, it can only be that I did not provide the right kind of reason for them. The problem is, as you mentioned, most people don't actually seek out or even listen to reasons, but rather merely want to make snap, superficial decisions and go about preaching their opinion. And that seems to be the case concerning this thread; " I did my part. All objectors are childish and ignorant.".

Snark wrote:You're conflating physics and metaphysics.

No. The metaphysics of General Relativity proposes an ontological foundation that space and time "warp"/"contract"/"dilate". The physics then describes the relations involved, the equations concerning how much.

Classical Newtonian physics involves the motions of items within a space described by the ontology of Newton's Laws of Motion. It is an ontology of rigid bodies, forces, and scaler velocities (It's claim as to the nature of being and existence). The Newtonian metaphysics has no room for "bending space" as in General Relativity ("gravitational force" doesn't exist in Relativity). The question as to whether space bends is an ontological question, from which physics equations can be derived in order to give detail concerning the specifics. As it turns out, neither ontology is true to reality, but that is another issue. They are both "physics" based upon their own "metaphysics" presumptions.

One cannot have a physics without there being an underpinning metaphysics.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:08 am

James S Saint wrote:No, no. I didn't say that one cannot be certain.


That's the problem.

One cannot have a physics without there being an underpinning metaphysics.


True. And the underpinning metaphysics of physics is the belief that the "scientific method" is valid.

Anselm of Canterbury said something very poignant: “For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.” Felt values are among the things I want to understand, and “that unless I believe I shall not understand.”

Search deep enough, and it is a dilemma all of us will encounter. We all want to belong to something bigger than ourselves, and only a person can love and be loved. Only a person can give us solace without being in denial.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:56 am

Snark wrote:Prisimatic is right about one thing: ontology — the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations — ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God. He's wrong about everything else, but he was right about that. It's a mystery to me how he can say that and, in the very next line, say that it is restricted to an existence that is independent of human conditions.
What is meant is,
in general, the term 'ontology' ultimately leads to a discussion of the existence of God and thus ontological God.

From my awareness and experience the subject most related to ontology is God, the Soul, the Whole Universe or Whole Reality, the devil.
No philosopher would be interested in discussing the ontological existence of an apple or a ball. By default the term 'ontology' is restricted to things beyond the empirical, which is metaphysical [more so the empirical impossible].

Any attempt to bring in 'ontology' to relate the empirical or anything scientific [like JSS] is trying to be rhetorical and deceptive.

The central theme of discussion related to 'ontology' is about whether an existence is absolute independent of human conditions [philosophical realism] or interdependent with human conditions.

Theists will claim God has an ontological existence in the sense God who created humans is absolutely independent from humans. Some theists will claim the Soul has an independent existence and will survive after physical death.

I claim the the ideas of God, Soul and 'Whole Universe created by God' is not independent but interdependent with the human conditions. In this senses, God exists only as conditioned by human psychological factors, i.e. no humans no God.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:25 am

Prismatic567 wrote:What is meant is,
in general, the term 'ontology' ultimately leads to a discussion of the existence of God and thus ontological God.

From my awareness and experience the subject most related to ontology is God, the Soul, the Whole Universe or Whole Reality, the devil.
No philosopher would be interested in discussing the ontological existence of an apple or a ball. By default the term 'ontology' is restricted to things beyond the empirical, which is metaphysical [more so the empirical impossible].

Any attempt to bring in 'ontology' to relate the empirical or anything scientific [like JSS] is trying to be rhetorical and deceptive.

The central theme of discussion related to 'ontology' is about whether an existence is absolute independent of human conditions [philosophical realism] or interdependent with human conditions.

Theists will claim God has an ontological existence in the sense God who created humans is absolutely independent from humans. Some theists will claim the Soul has an independent existence and will survive after physical death.

I claim the the ideas of God, Soul and 'Whole Universe created by God' is not independent but interdependent with the human conditions. In this senses, God exists only as conditioned by human psychological factors, i.e. no humans no God.


Good post. =D> It reminds me of an article I read:

Whenever a scientist set up an experiment to measure the wavelike aspect of light, the subjective act of deciding which measuring device to use in some mysterious way affected the outcome, and light responded by acting as a wave. The same phenomenon occurred whenever a scientist set out to measure the particlelike aspect of light. Thus "subjectivity," the anathema of all science (and the creative wellspring of all art) had to be admitted into the carefully defended citadel of classical physics. Werner Heisenberg, Bohr's close associate, said in support of this bizarre notion, "The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate.... Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves." According to the new physics, observer and observed are somehow connected, and the inner domain of subjective thought turns out to be intimately conjoined to the external sphere of objective facts.

John Wheeler, one of Bohr's students, subsequently expanded Bohr's duality, proposing that Mind and Universe, like wave and particle, constitute another complementary pair. Wheeler's theory proposes a connection between the inner realm of consciousness (Mind) and its reciprocal, the external world of the senses (Universe). According to Wheeler, Mind and Universe are inextricably integrated. The Talmud expresses this subtle relationship in an apocryphal story of a dialogue between God and Abraham. God begins by chiding Abraham, "If it wasn't for Me, you wouldn't exist." After a moment of thoughtful reflection, Abraham respectfully replies, "Yes, Lord, and for that I am very appreciative and grateful. However, if it wasn't for me, You wouldn't be known."

Theists will claim God has an ontological existence in the sense God who created humans is absolutely independent from humans. Some theists will claim the Soul has an independent existence and will survive after physical death.
For many theists, it's not that that there is absolute independence, but that God is ontologically different; i.e., non-contingent as opposed to contingent.

Existence (the fact or state of continued being) is axiomatic (meaning that it does not rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises) because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth (a denial of something is only possible if existence exists). "Existence exists" is therefore an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. Theists argue that God is that existence. True, it's not a predicate -- it doesn't say anything about God, but with it comes a whole slew of philosophical implications and ramifications.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:47 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Theists will claim God has an ontological existence in the sense God who created humans is absolutely independent from humans. Some theists will claim the Soul has an independent existence and will survive after physical death.


Snark wrote:For many theists, it's not that that there is absolute independence, but that God is ontologically different; i.e., non-contingent as opposed to contingent.
Non-contingent is independent, but for God it has to be absolutely independent as theists [to be certain] would want the existence of God to be conditioned by anything in relation to humans.

Existence (the fact or state of continued being) is axiomatic (meaning that it does not rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises) because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth (a denial of something is only possible if existence exists). "Existence exists" is therefore an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. Theists argue that God is that existence. True, it's not a predicate -- it doesn't say anything about God, but with it comes a whole slew of philosophical implications and ramifications.
Existence is axiomatic because you and others of the like agree, said so and insist upon it.

Kant argued 'exist' cannot be a predicate.
God exists.. must be predicated on something, else it is groundless.
Existence exists .. must also be predicated and qualified to something.

When we state 'that apple exists' there is a default of of a whole 'slew of philosophical implications and ramifications' within a Framework and System, but ultimately its truth must be justified empirically & rationally. There is no credible justification basis for reality other than the empirical-rational basis.

Thus for 'God exists' to be credible, it must be justified within empirical-rational basis. The next best basis is a justification by pure reason without empirical basis which in the case of 'God' the conclusion is illusory.

The only empirical-rational basis for 'God' is, it is only a thought and has truth relative to the psychology of a human being. The idea of God has psychological utility.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:44 am

Let's consider something...

The act of walking is static, a "platonic form", yet it is also motion. Unmoved motion is a concept that has been used to describe reality for a long time, and perhaps it's fine just to leave it at that.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10470
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:52 am

Snark wrote:
James S Saint wrote:No, no. I didn't say that one cannot be certain.


That's the problem.

No. Your certainty that it is a problem is the problem - denying your own consequent, "I am certain that one cannot be certain" - an oxymoron.

Snark wrote:
One cannot have a physics without there being an underpinning metaphysics.

True. And the underpinning metaphysics of physics is the belief that the "scientific method" is valid.

No, the scientific method is a Philosophy for discovery of false hypotheses. Science itself is not a metaphysics, but always presumes one. Get your terminology straight.

Are there forces and rigid bodies? That is an ontological issue. Science presumed that there were during the Newtonian days. Science discovered that ontology to be untrue to reality. Science still accepts the ontological elements of forces, but not rigid bodies. In reality, there are no forces either, but Science might get around to that one day.

Cartesian virtues are ontological elements that are accepted outside of Relativity. Relativity is an ontology of bending or warping what is normally thought of as straight in accord with how much energy is present, and thus non-Cartesian. That makes it a different ontological basis for physics. In certain circumstances, the Relativity ontology will yield absurd conclusions (such as a circumference being smaller than its diameter). Science is aware that Relativity doesn't always work and thus as a whole, isn't always true to reality, thus a false ontology, but useful at times.

Quantum Physics (not to be confused with Quantum Mechanics) has time moving forward and backward as well as existence itself depending upon observation. That is an ontological construct (nonsensical, but none the less their ontology). Very few physicists actually believe in the Quantum Physics ontology as a reality, but rather merely Quantum Mechanics as a useful tool for calculating average particle activity.

Science is always operating with a presumed ontology, even when it is already known that the ontology is "incomplete" or actually proven to be not always true.

Ancient scriptures have their ontology as well involving "spirits", "devils", "gods" and the like. It was merely their way of understanding the universe. When you properly translate their ontological elements into modern ontological terms, they can hardly be argued as nonsense; "spirit = behavior", "devil = any cause of entropy", "a god = an irrevocable principle".

NONE of those ontologies, scientific or religious, actually truly fit reality. They are each maps with vague borders and limited use. But they are ontologies, none the less. Science itself is not an ontology, but merely a method.

And thus this claim:
Prismatic567 wrote:in general, the term 'ontology' ultimately leads to a discussion of the existence of God and thus ontological God.
.. is a lie. Most modern ontologies are materialistic in nature and never discuss "God".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:39 am

And neither the use nor usefulness determines the truth of a chosen understanding/ontology. Whether the ontology of God and his angels is psychologically useful has nothing to do with the accuracy of such an ontological map. ALL current ontologies are untrue to reality, yet ALL are useful within their own scope and purpose.

Usefulness is the guide (which is why people lie). Truth is merely a compass. None of the current or ancient compasses are true, yet all are useful.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Uccisore » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:05 pm

Why would absolute perfections as you define them be impossible? I realize that there are no perfect circles in nature, but that's just because matter is too lumpy and fragile and moved by forces too chaotic to bring one about. There's nothing inherently contradictory or incoherent about the concept of a physically existing perfect circle so far as I am aware.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:28 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:That's why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able to demonstrate it one way or the other.

Prove to your cat that the Internet is real.


More to the point [of the thread], cats don't have an inherent biological capacity to ponder whether it is possible that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist.

They don't have conflicting value judgments rooted in dasein either.

In other words, one can very well comprehend why those of our own species would ponder the existence of God. After all, look what is at stake. A font for morality on this side of the grave, and immortality, salvation and divine justice on the other side of it.

Provided of course that we do not live in an entirely determined universe.

On the other hand, why on earth would someone of our own species get into a debate over whether cats are actually able to grasp the existence of the internet.

Or, have I entirely missed your point, James?

If so, try to reconfigure it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:22 pm

iambiguous wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:That's why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able to demonstrate it one way or the other.

Prove to your cat that the Internet is real.


More to the point [of the thread], cats don't have an inherent biological capacity to ponder whether it is possible that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist.

Exactly the point.

iambiguous wrote:They don't have conflicting value judgments rooted in dasein either.

Neither do reasonably rational people.

Btw, did you ever learn how to actually spell, "Meow"? :-s
.. I mean out side of just "your head".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:19 pm

Uccisore wrote:Why would absolute perfections as you define them be impossible? I realize that there are no perfect circles in nature, but that's just because matter is too lumpy and fragile and moved by forces too chaotic to bring one about. There's nothing inherently contradictory or incoherent about the concept of a physically existing perfect circle so far as I am aware.

I think his point is that if it can’t exist empirically, it can’t exist in spacetime. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:10 am

Snark wrote:
Uccisore wrote:Why would absolute perfections as you define them be impossible? I realize that there are no perfect circles in nature, but that's just because matter is too lumpy and fragile and moved by forces too chaotic to bring one about. There's nothing inherently contradictory or incoherent about the concept of a physically existing perfect circle so far as I am aware.

I think his point is that if it can’t exist empirically, it can’t exist in spacetime. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist.
What I meant is, what is postulated as an absolutely perfect or absolute perfection cannot exists within an empirical-rational reality as real.
Empirical-rationality meant the empirical process reinforced with the highest faculty of reason, i.e. philosophy.

There's nothing inherently contradictory or incoherent about the concept of a physically existing perfect circle so far as I am aware.
A perfect circle can be thought but how can you justify its real existence within empirical-rational reality.
Rationally, it is impossible for a perfect circle to be realized within empirical-rational reality as real.
Note Hume one cannot get an "is" [empirical] from an "ought" [as reasoned]. Can you prove Hume was wrong? Nb; there are other arguments beside Hume that prove it is the case one cannot mix an "is" [oil] with "ought" [water].

In the case of absolute perfection, we are going into the highest scale one can think of. An absolutely perfect circle [e.g. as in Plato's Form] is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

Note a "circle" has an empirical foundation but it is impossible as an absolutely perfect circle.
OTOH, the idea of God [which MUST be of absolute perfection] has no empirical foundation at all but it is merely arise from thoughts and pure reason which is a transcendental illusion.
Therefore the idea of God which must be absolutely perfect cannot exists as real within an empirical-rational reality.

Snark wrote:I think his point is that if it can’t exist empirically, it can’t exist in spacetime. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist.
If you think it can exists, explain how it can exist and explain the possibility of how you can prove it.

Note I stated some human-liked aliens which are very intelligent and powerful could exist in a planet or location some billions of light years from Earth could possibly exists, albeit of very low probability.
Why such aliens can exists is because they have empirical-based elements which can be empirically-rationally confirmed if such aliens appear before us.
To prove such aliens exists [empirical-rational] all we need is the empirical based evidences.

The point with a necessary absolutely perfect God is it has no empirical basis, but merely arise from thoughts and pure reason. Thus such a god is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. There is no question of 'bring the evidence' because it is impossible for the empirical-based evidence to exists in the first place.

How Did the Idea of a God Arose within Human Consciousness?
Why theists insist such an impossible God exists is driven and compelled by an existential psychological force.
Note Hume's explanation of how 'Induction' is driven and compelled by our customs, habits and conjunction.
This psychological drive that compel a theist to believe in an empirically-impossible-God is much deeper and complex than Humes' habit and custom.

This psychological link to a God is not a frivolous claim.
There are many research and evidence to prove those who claim to have experiences of a God in various way were caused by psychological factors, mental problems and illnesses.

Drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals entering into the brain can also induce various experiences of a God.

With the above psychological research and evidence, the idea of a God which MUST be ultimately absolutely perfect, God is more likely [as evident] to manifest in one's consciousness due to psychological reasons than a very hollow claim like "but it doesn’t mean it can’t exist."
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:12 am

James S Saint wrote:
Snark wrote:
James S Saint wrote:No, no. I didn't say that one cannot be certain.


That's the problem.

No. Your certainty that it is a problem is the problem - denying your own consequent, "I am certain that one cannot be certain" - an oxymoron.
I prefer saying, "There is no Truth." Ever read Holophany, The Loop of Creation?

Science is always operating with a presumed ontology...
That's my point.

NONE of those ontologies, scientific or religious, actually truly fit reality. They are each maps with vague borders and limited use. But they are ontologies, none the less. Science itself is not an ontology, but merely a method.
Yup.


And thus this claim:
Prismatic567 wrote:in general, the term 'ontology' ultimately leads to a discussion of the existence of God and thus ontological God.
.. is a lie. Most modern ontologies are materialistic in nature and never discuss "God".

Most modern ontologies are superficial.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:29 am

Snark wrote: I prefer saying, "There is no Truth."

If there is no Truth, there is no Lie. So what is Prism bickering about?

Snark wrote:Most modern ontologies are superficial.

I wouldn't call Science "superficial", although scientists are obviously philosophically naive.
Uccisore wrote:Why would absolute perfections as you define them be impossible? I realize that there are no perfect circles in nature, but that's just because matter is too lumpy and fragile and moved by forces too chaotic to bring one about. There's nothing inherently contradictory or incoherent about the concept of a physically existing perfect circle so far as I am aware.

He doesn't understand what the word "perfect" means, so his issues are irrelevant.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:31 am

Prismatic567 wrote:If you think it can exists, explain how it can exist and explain the possibility of how you can prove it.
It's axiomatic. Existence (the fact or state of continued being) is axiomatic (meaning that it does not rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises) because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth (a denial of something is only possible if existence exists). "Existence exists" is therefore an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing.

The point with a necessary absolutely perfect God is it has no empirical basis, but merely arise from thoughts and pure reason. Thus such a god is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. There is no question of 'bring the evidence' because it is impossible for the empirical-based evidence to exists in the first place.

See above.

Drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals entering into the brain can also induce various experiences of a God.

I certainly hope so. (The brain is a receive-amplifier, not the source of consciousness.)
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:36 am

Existence is that which has affect ("to affect" being "to cause change"). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users