God is an Impossibility

You’re conflating physics and metaphysics.

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.

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.".

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.

That’s the problem.

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.

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:

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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:

… is a lie. Most modern ontologies are materialistic in nature and never discuss “God”.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly the point.

Neither do reasonably rational people.

Btw, did you ever learn how to actually spell, “Meow”? :-s
… I mean out side of just “your head”.

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.

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.

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 prefer saying, “There is no Truth.” Ever read Holophany, The Loop of Creation?

That’s my point.

Yup.

Most modern ontologies are superficial.

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

I wouldn’t call Science “superficial”, although scientists are obviously philosophically naive.

He doesn’t understand what the word “perfect” means, so his issues are irrelevant.

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.

See above.

I certainly hope so. (The brain is a receive-amplifier, not the source of consciousness.)

Existence is that which has affect (“to affect” being “to cause change”). If God has affect, then by definition, God exists.

I alluded to this earlier…

Walking is a static platonic ideal or form, from which we can notice the act of walking. The platonic ideal or form is not affectance. I will assert without any reservation, affectance is not the defining characteristic of existence.

Does the ground of being have an an affect on the things grounded in it?