God is an Impossibility

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?

In terms of ideal platonic forms… “the ground of being”, they don’t need to act of them to be, the platonic ideal of walking, in the eternal, needs no act of walking to assert itself on this plane, it exists regardless. This is where James is wrong

If it is the changing itself, yes - Affect upon Affect.

Affect upon affect is stasis …James. Tsk, tsk

Not even close.

Makes sense to me. :slight_smile:

Without qualification it is nonsense to me.

In the above case where A caused effect B, both A and B are empirical entities and the whole process in accordance to Hume is basically a psychological process.

In the case ‘God cause effect B’, there are various philosophical issues;

  1. The first point is cause and effect [regardless of real or not ] is psychological.
  2. Effect B may be empirical and can be proven but
  3. IF effect B is non-empirical, then there is no way of proving it empirically.
  4. God [unprovable based on mere faith] has no empirical basis.
  5. God [an ought] can never be equated with “is” [empirical effects].

Therefore ‘God cause effect B’ makes no sense, i.e. it is non-sense in terms of empirical-rational reality.

The only sense ‘God cause effect B’ has is in the psychological sense since it is the psychological sense [re Hume] that trigger it.

As I had always stated, the only real basis of ‘God exists’ is merely psychological and has nothing to do directly within an empirical-rational reality.

Oh really.

[b]Can you name something known to exist yet has no affect upon anything at all?

Can you name anything that has affect upon something yet is known to not exist?[/b]

Who is actually the shallow one here.
:laughing:

It’s amusing that you revere Hume and Kant so much. Neither were the greatest philosophers in the world. But then for those of you who cannot think for yourselves, I guess you have to turn to someone. The sad thing is that you can’t seem to understand any of them, yet still preach their names from your little soapbox, hoping to leech an ounce of respect.

But since logic is new to you, let me remind you of a common logic fallacy which you tend to ignore:

“It’s true cuz my smart man said it’s true”.

And since you spout Science as the new savior of humanity, let me remind you:
The foundation of Science and the motto of the Royal Science of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, the oldest such society still in existence.
Nullius in Verba
“Take No one’s Word”

If you can’t figure it out for yourself, who are you but someone else’s preacher?