God is an Impossibility

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

If not, then what is objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective, do you agree?
But scientific knowledge which is objective is grounded on intersubjective consensus among the specific scientists peers. You dispute this?

You don’t seem to understand. Science deals with quantities. Inter-subjectivity in science is related to empirical observation, not value judgements.

The established measurement of an objective ‘perfect circle’ will not be influenced by personal feeling or opinions.
Therefore wherever the measure of a “perfect circle” is referred to by anyone, it is not their personal judgment based on their personal feeling or opinion but refer to a universal value measurement as a standard in geometry.

Without the term “perfection” we have a circle that would comply to a certain geometrical condition – that is objective. The term “perfect” wouldn’t add anything to the circle or change it in any way because it is not an actual quantity. Perfect is the emphasis, it is subjective or inter-subjective, it isn’t necessary.

You just cannot insist in your personal subjective value judgement as what are to be the measurements for an objective perfect circle.

I’m not, but perfection doesn’t have to be universally accepted – that is the nature of perfection.

I have already stated “absolute perfection” is not my claim as an attribute to God.

I said, my claim is, the claim of God with an attribute of absolute perfection by theists, is impossible if such is God is claimed to be real.

On the premise that “absolute perfection is impossible”. That is your absolute claim.

The above is not something I pick from nowhere but my personal belief with high conviction based on rational arguments and justification.

I understand what you’re attempting to do, but I don’t think that you’re correct. In my view, perfection simply cannot be used as a premise to prove or disprove the existence of something. If perfection was a quantity, then I could see where you’re coming from. But because perfection is a quality that exists only inter-subjectively, it cannot be used to as a framework to imply the non-existence of something that is claimed to be empirical.

[Prismatic567]

@Fanman

Prismatic,

If not, then what is objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective, do you agree?
But scientific knowledge which is objective is grounded on intersubjective consensus among the specific scientists peers. You dispute this?

You don’t seem to understand. Science deals with quantities. Inter-subjectivity in science is related to empirical observation, not value judgements.

You disputed my point ‘objective = intersubjectivity.’
I asked but you did not reply nor counter, scientific knowledge is objective which = intersubjectivity.
In certain sciences, judgments are quantified [the use of ratings on emotional feelings] then it is objective based on intersubjectivity.

That a serial murderer was convicted in a certain court upon circumstantial evidences was based on the intersubjectivity consensus of the jury.

That Zozibini Tunzi won Miss Universe 2019 is an objective fact, but that was based on the intersubjective judgments of all the judges.

The degree of objectivity [confidence level] will depend on the basis relied upon.

The established measurement of an objective ‘perfect circle’ will not be influenced by personal feeling or opinions.
Therefore wherever the measure of a “perfect circle” is referred to by anyone, it is not their personal judgment based on their personal feeling or opinion but refer to a universal value measurement as a standard in geometry.

Without the term “perfection” we have a circle that would comply to a certain geometrical condition – that is objective. The term “perfect” wouldn’t add anything to the circle or change it in any way because it is not an actual quantity. Perfect is the emphasis, it is subjective or inter-subjective, it isn’t necessary.

Without ‘perfection’ attributed to a circle as a standard, we will have various subjective views of what is a circle.
With ‘perfection’ or a perfect circle as a standard, then whatever is claimed as a circle in practice can be determined as to how close it is to the standard-circle.

You just cannot insist in your personal subjective value judgement as what are to be the measurements for an objective perfect circle.

I’m not, but perfection doesn’t have to be universally accepted – that is the nature of perfection.

Do you understand what is universal Geometry?
What you are saying is like, within basic Arithmetic, “1 + 1 = 2” need not be universally accepted, so 1 + 1 = 5 and others are correct. That is crazy.

I have already stated “absolute perfection” is not my claim as an attribute to God.

I said, my claim is, the claim of God with an attribute of absolute perfection by theists, is impossible if such is God is claimed to be real.

On the premise that “absolute perfection is impossible”. That is your absolute claim.

It is not my absolutely absolute claim.
It is my conditional claim grounded on the arguments and justifications I provided.

The above is not something I pick from nowhere but my personal belief with high conviction based on rational arguments and justification.

I understand what you’re attempting to do, but I don’t think that you’re correct. In my view, perfection simply cannot be used as a premise to prove or disprove the existence of something. If perfection was a quantity, then I could see where you’re coming from. But because perfection is a quality that exists only inter-subjectively, it cannot be used to as a framework to imply the non-existence of something that is claimed to be empirical.

You missed the point.

The point is the more advanced theologians claim their God exists as real and is absolutely perfect. This is a contradiction.
I am arguing their claim is false i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real with absolute perfection.

In addition I am not into proving or disproving the existence of something.
What I have demonstrated is the hypothesis [postulation] “God to exists as real with absolute perfection” is moot, i.e. a non-starter because it is contradiction.
This is like claiming ‘square-circle’ exists as real which is obviously a moot point, i.e. a non-starter.

Btw, I have offered the justified alternative argument why theists conjure and cling to an illusory God for psychological security purposes.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Do you understand what is universal Geometry?
What you are saying is like, within basic Arithmetic, “1 + 1 = 2” need not be universally accepted, so 1 + 1 = 5 and others are correct. That is crazy.

This is a cheap shot. I haven’t questioned universal geometry (where?), I said that perfection doesn’t have to be universally accepted - I wasn’t specifically referring to geometry when I said that, it was a general statement. I did also state “I’m not” which you seem to have missed.

It is not my absolutely absolute claim.
It is my conditional claim grounded on the arguments and justifications I provided.

The claim “absolute perfection is impossible” is an absolute one. I don’t understand why you are saying that it isn’t? But human-beings don’t know such absolutes, so there is no choice but to argue on conditional premises - which defeats the endeavour. I think that the fact is, you can never know if what you term as “absolute perfection” is possible or impossible and there are reasons for that.

You missed the point.

The point is the more advanced theologians claim their God exists as real and is absolutely perfect. This is a contradiction.
I am arguing their claim is false i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real with absolute perfection.

In addition I am not into proving or disproving the existence of something.
What I have demonstrated is the hypothesis [postulation] “God to exists as real with absolute perfection” is moot, i.e. a non-starter because it is contradiction.
This is like claiming ‘square-circle’ exists as real which is obviously a moot point, i.e. a non-starter.

This seems like a red herring to me. But in giving you the benefit of the doubt all I’ll say is, same difference.

With regards to the other points you made; I’ll stick with what I originally stated.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@Fanman

Prismatic,

Do you understand what is universal Geometry?
What you are saying is like, within basic Arithmetic, “1 + 1 = 2” need not be universally accepted, so 1 + 1 = 5 and others are correct. That is crazy.

This is a cheap shot. I haven’t questioned universal geometry (where?), I said that perfection doesn’t have to be universally accepted - I wasn’t specifically referring to geometry when I said that, it was a general statement. I did also state “I’m not” which you seem to have missed.

There are several errors in his attack. He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection. With no demonstration of this. Second he moves from absolute to universal. And as a side note, one could have a math that has 1+1=5.

You missed the point.

The point is the more advanced theologians claim their God exists as real and is absolutely perfect. This is a contradiction.
I am arguing their claim is false i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real with absolute perfection.

In addition I am not into proving or disproving the existence of something.
What I have demonstrated is the hypothesis [postulation] “God to exists as real with absolute perfection” is moot, i.e. a non-starter because it is contradiction.
This is like claiming ‘square-circle’ exists as real which is obviously a moot point, i.e. a non-starter.

This seems like a red herring to me. But in giving you the benefit of the doubt all I’ll say is, same difference.

[/quote]
Notice the part I bolded in his quote above yours. Prismatic says that the more ‘advanced’ theologians claim their goal is absolutely perfect. An atheist is deciding whose version of God and what words about God are the correct ones, any other theist’s ideas be damned. He is THE expert, determining whose religious ideas are the best, then using these as the basis for his proof that any God does not exist.

This has been pointed out to him before. But here I noticed the new appeal to the authority of SOME of his opponents, ironically, to form one of the premises of his ‘proof’.

It has been pointed out here also to him the naivte about the philosophy of language, religious language in general that he is using here. Why we MUST follow the ideas of certain theologians and assume that if there is a God it must be their version of it, he does not argue.

And he has performed these problematic arguments for years, as I think you know, simply going back to old defenses when new interlocuters come along.

[Fanman]

KT,

I think that all of the points you raise are valid. And this one “He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection.” is one of the key ones. As you say, there is no demonstration for this, his interlocutors are just supposed to accept this as a given.

I’m not that educated, but I have a few qualifications which covered the subjects we’re discussing. As you’ve said previously, I think that Prismatic an autodidact, which is fine. But if this is the case, there hasn’t been anyone qualified to guide his education and show him where he is making mistakes or the areas he could improve in – which I feel he would be better for. At this stage however, I highly doubt that he would accept criticism or see it as constructive as he appears to be so locked within his views. Which is a shame, because as we’ve both stated he is very bright. As we have things, he is quite the immovable object. No matter how salient your points are, he will just try to find ways to out maneuver them. As I see things, because he just wants to win.

[felix_dakat]

@Prismatic567

@felix dakat

I doubt you will dispute with me that Kant’s philosophy was enormously influential on the subsequent history of thought though you may disagree that it can be widely interpreted even by the academic experts since you seem to be quite certain that your interpretation is the only correct one.

Yes, Kant’s philosophy was highly influential, thus labelled as one of the greatest Western philosophers of all times. I believe he is ‘not one of’ but THE Greatest.

The reading of Kant is divided into two major camps, i.e.

1. -the non-analytic, e.g. Alison and others

2. -the analytic camp non-theistic, e.g. Guyer and others
   ----2a - the theological theist camp - Stephen Palmquist, and others.

I agree totally with the views of camp 1 i.e. Alison and others.
Therefore I am not claiming my interpretation is the only correct one.
I have relied on this view to add on my argument, God is an impossibility to exists as real.

Those in camp 2 believe the thing-in-itself is a thing that exists.
The theists in camp 2a believe the thing-in-itself exists as a real thing, i.e. God.

Turns out the phrase “empirically real” or “real empirically” is problematic and ambiguous though. Kant has conceded that the really real i.e. “the thing itself” is unknowable. Thus, sensory data is mere phenomena. Yet, per Kant, the mind imposes it’s own order on the data. The structure we know as the “world” is not the world as it is in itself but rather the structure of our mind as the “world”.

Kant did not claim the “thing-in-itself” is unknowable.
The thing-in-itself is outside the realm of knowledge, so how can it be known or unknowable.
The question of ‘knowable’ or ‘unknowable’ is moot, i.e. a non-started as far as the ‘thing-in-itself’ is concerned.

I have quoted this many times;

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it [noumenon] is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

The division of Objects into Phenomena and Noumena, and the World into a World of the Senses and a World of the Understanding, is therefore quite inadmissible in the Positive sense, 2 although the distinction of Concepts as Sensible and Intellectual is certainly legitimate.
For no Object can be determined for the latter [intellectual] Concepts, and consequently they [noumena] cannot be asserted to be Objectively Valid.
A255 B311 - Smith

Kant stated, the concept of the nuomenon is ONLY a Limiting Concept and cannot be taken in the positive sense in terms of knowledge.
Kant repeated the above [re noumenon] many times.
Show me where did Kant change his mind on the above thereafter in the CPR?

The noumenon is also the same as the thing-in-itself but in another perspective.
I have already quoted Kant in stating the thing-in-itself can only be used regulatively [you need to understand this term] and NEVER constructively, i.e. positively and objectively.
The thing-in-itself albeit illusory is only good for use within morality but never epistemology, i.e. knowledge to be known or is somewhere unknowable.

So, in what sense can we call this “reality”? From Kant through Darwin, Freud, neuro-scientists, etc., it became evident that human thought and perception is determined, structured, and often distorted by a multiple innate, non-absolute mental “categories” including but not limited to habit, history, culture, social class, biology, language, imagination, emotion, and the unconscious. Your “empirical reality” begs the question,how the human mind can be relied upon to be an accurate judge of “reality”?

Kant never state there is a reality out there to be known.
What Kant presented is a reality emerges interdependently with the subject [humans] i.e. objects are Given within the process of emergence, not as pre-existing externally to be perceived.

So what can we say about reality- as- it- is- in- itself? The wisest e.g. Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counsel against talking about it. The religions anthropomorphize and mythologize it. Atheists claim they don’t believe in it but they can’t stop talking about it and may be no less obsessed with an image of it than theists. So, here we are.

Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counselled against wishing for its existence as real as such an expectation is an impossibility and one will end up with a reified illusion.
Point is, whether the thing-in-itself exists are real or not, knowable or unknowable is moot, i.e. a non-starter.

In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard’s attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity”?

What Kant proposed ‘moral-based-religion’ is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio circumstances during his time and when he was under threat by the King.

Soren Kierkegaard, I believe is still theistic.

Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God. The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”. This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post. Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

[Prismatic567]

@felix dakat

Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, Kant demonstrated all proofs of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument which is attributed with ‘absolute perfection.’

This is why I raised my P2 in the OP, i.e.

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect

The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”.

This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post.

Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If your God cannot be found within the totality of beings, then you are alluding that your God is an inferior God or even a false God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent [absolute], so God has to be present everywhere. So an independent God is a weak God.

When your God is a thing that is separated from its creation, than, it is possible for the existence of a God which is greater than your God and thus leading to infinite regression.

For example, the Muslims will claim their God is greater than your God, how are you going to counter them or anyone who insist your God is inferior to theirs?

God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If God cannot be said to exist, then it is a non-existence, i.e. God does not exist.
That would be weird.

As I had proposed, no matter how much theists eel [twist and turn] their way to insist God exists [as whatever], there is no real God.
There are high psychological stakes involved and the reason why theists conjure [reify] an illusory God naturally is merely to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

[Prismatic567]

@Fanman

KT,

I think that all of the points you raise are valid. And this one “He simply presumes that the rules of math are analogous or even equal to perfection.” is one of the key ones. As you say, there is no demonstration for this, his interlocutors are just supposed to accept this as a given.

I’m not that educated, but I have a few qualifications which covered the subjects we’re discussing. As you’ve said previously, I think that Prismatic an autodidact, which is fine. But if this is the case, there hasn’t been anyone qualified to guide his education and show him where he is making mistakes or the areas he could improve in – which I feel he would be better for. At this stage however, I highly doubt that he would accept criticism or see it as constructive as he appears to be so locked within his views. Which is a shame, because as we’ve both stated he is very bright. As we have things, he is quite the immovable object. No matter how salient your points are, he will just try to find ways to out maneuver them. As I see things, because he just wants to win.

As usual, instead of counter with rational justified arguments you end up with ad hominens.

As in Science and Philosophy, it would be very intellectual immature to seek to win [like in a court].
The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one’s existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one’s existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.

There have been many counter-arguments and salient points made in this thread. Why would the case be that none of them are justified, but your arguments are justified?

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@felix dakat

In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard’s attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity”?

What Kant proposed ‘moral-based-religion’ is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio
Soren Kierkegaard, I believe is still theistic.

Bonhoffer…was most likely a theist, though there is some controversy and his beliefs, of course, have nothing to do with demonstrating what Kant believed…

Overshadowed by the dramatic events of his life, Bonhoeffer’s theology has nevertheless been influential. His theology has a fragmentary, unsystematic nature, due at least in part to his untimely death, and is subject to diverse and contradictory interpretations, sometimes necessarily based on speculation and projection. So, for example, while his Christocentric approach appeals to conservative, confession-minded Protestants, his commitment to justice and ideas about “religionless Christianity”[71] are emphasized by liberal Protestants.

Central to Bonhoeffer’s theology is Christ, in whom God and the world are reconciled. Bonhoeffer’s God is a suffering God, whose manifestation is found in this-worldliness. Bonhoeffer believed that the Incarnation of God in flesh made it unacceptable to speak of God and the world “in terms of two spheres”—an implicit attack upon Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms. Bonhoeffer stressed personal and collective piety and revived the idea of imitation of Christ. He argued that Christians should not retreat from the world but act within it. He believed that two elements were constitutive of faith: the implementation of justice and the acceptance of divine suffering.[72] Bonhoeffer insisted that the church, like the Christians, “had to share in the sufferings of God at the hands of a godless world” if it were to be a true church of Christ.

and yes, Kierkegaard was a theist, though he was very critical of the church. Those should no be conflated.

[felix_dakat]

@Prismatic567

@felix dakat

Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, Kant demonstrated all proofs of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument which is attributed with ‘absolute perfection.’

This is why I raised my P2 in the OP, i.e.

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect

The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”.

This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post.

Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If your God cannot be found within the totality of beings, then you are alluding that your God is an inferior God or even a false God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent [absolute], so God has to be present everywhere. So an independent God is a weak God.

When your God is a thing that is separated from its creation, than, it is possible for the existence of a God which is greater than your God and thus leading to infinite regression.

For example, the Muslims will claim their God is greater than your God, how are you going to counter them or anyone who insist your God is inferior to theirs?

God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If God cannot be said to exist, then it is a non-existence, i.e. God does not exist.
That would be weird.

As I had proposed, no matter how much theists eel [twist and turn] their way to insist God exists [as whatever], there is no real God.
There are high psychological stakes involved and the reason why theists conjure [reify] an illusory God naturally is merely to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

I’m not arguing for the existence of God. I’m identifying the God symbol with being itself. Every finite being participates in being itself by the mere fact of its existence, you included. So any God that is a being depends on being itself for existence and is therefore inferior in the sense of dependence or contingency.

Being itself is in no way separate from creation or the universe of all beings. All beings participate in it. The distinction here is that between the ontic and the ontological. youtube.com/watch?v=FE9lcWRgTOE

God symbolizes the mystery of being. Infinite regression symbolizes the abysmal nature of ultimate reality.

Every particular God of whatever religion including Islam symbolizes ultimate reality. As the Tao Te Ching recognized little can be said literally about the ultimate. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” The major religions participate in the mystery of ultimate being by means of metaphorical narratives which they hold sacred.

The psychologist in me loves to hear a subject disclose their fantasies. What sadistic pleasure you must have had at your mental image of the theist eel twisting and turning. Ha ha! I love it! =D>

[felix_dakat]

@Karpel Tunnel

@felix dakat

In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard’s attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity”?

What Kant proposed ‘moral-based-religion’ is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio
Soren Kierkegaard, I believe is still theistic.

Bonhoffer…was most likely a theist, though there is some controversy and his beliefs, of course, have nothing to do with demonstrating what Kant believed…

Overshadowed by the dramatic events of his life, Bonhoeffer’s theology has nevertheless been influential. His theology has a fragmentary, unsystematic nature, due at least in part to his untimely death, and is subject to diverse and contradictory interpretations, sometimes necessarily based on speculation and projection. So, for example, while his Christocentric approach appeals to conservative, confession-minded Protestants, his commitment to justice and ideas about “religionless Christianity”[71] are emphasized by liberal Protestants.

Central to Bonhoeffer’s theology is Christ, in whom God and the world are reconciled. Bonhoeffer’s God is a suffering God, whose manifestation is found in this-worldliness. Bonhoeffer believed that the Incarnation of God in flesh made it unacceptable to speak of God and the world “in terms of two spheres”—an implicit attack upon Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms. Bonhoeffer stressed personal and collective piety and revived the idea of imitation of Christ. He argued that Christians should not retreat from the world but act within it. He believed that two elements were constitutive of faith: the implementation of justice and the acceptance of divine suffering.[72] Bonhoeffer insisted that the church, like the Christians, “had to share in the sufferings of God at the hands of a godless world” if it were to be a true church of Christ.

and yes, Kierkegaard was a theist, though he was very critical of the church. Those should no be conflated.

I only mentioned Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer because Prismatic567 used a text in which Kant strongly criticized ritual, superstition and the church hierarchy as an argument for Kant being an atheist whereas Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer who criticized ritual, superstition and church hierarchy radically are considered theists.

[Prismatic567]

@Fanman

Prismatic,

The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one’s existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.

There have been many counter-arguments and salient points made in this thread. Why would the case be that none of them are justified, but your arguments are justified?

Where are the many counter-arguments that are justified?

[Fanman]

@Prismatic567

@Fanman

Prismatic,

The ultimate drive in any Scientific and Philosophy argument of no certainty is to look forward to hope there are justified argument that can prove one existing arguments to be false.
While awaiting for justified argument, the deal is to explore whether one’s existing model can be applied for means that are useful for humanity.

There have been many counter-arguments and salient points made in this thread. Why would the case be that none of them are justified, but your arguments are justified?

Where are the many counter-arguments that are justified?

That’s not what I said. You are avoiding the question, because of what the answer implies.

[Prismatic567]

@felix dakat

@Prismatic567

@felix dakat

Kant thought that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments depend on the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, Kant demonstrated all proofs of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument which is attributed with ‘absolute perfection.’

This is why I raised my P2 in the OP, i.e.

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect

The problem is that the existence of God contradicts the idea of a creative ground of both essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings. God cannot be one being among others even if is proposed that God is the highest being or a “perfect being”.

This is your presupposition for P1 in the opening post.

Such a God cannot exist. Even if such a being could be shown to exist it would not be God. God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If your God cannot be found within the totality of beings, then you are alluding that your God is an inferior God or even a false God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent [absolute], so God has to be present everywhere. So an independent God is a weak God.

When your God is a thing that is separated from its creation, than, it is possible for the existence of a God which is greater than your God and thus leading to infinite regression.

For example, the Muslims will claim their God is greater than your God, how are you going to counter them or anyone who insist your God is inferior to theirs?

God is the creative ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to exist.

If God cannot be said to exist, then it is a non-existence, i.e. God does not exist.
That would be weird.

As I had proposed, no matter how much theists eel [twist and turn] their way to insist God exists [as whatever], there is no real God.
There are high psychological stakes involved and the reason why theists conjure [reify] an illusory God naturally is merely to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

I’m not arguing for the existence of God. I’m identifying the God symbol with being itself. Every finite being participates in being itself by the mere fact of its existence, you included. So any God that is a being depends on being itself for existence and is therefore inferior in the sense of dependence or contingency.

Being itself is in no way separate from creation or the universe of all beings. All beings participate in it. The distinction here is that between the ontic and the ontological. youtube.com/watch?v=FE9lcWRgTOE

God symbolizes the mystery of being. Infinite regression symbolizes the abysmal nature of ultimate reality.

Every particular God of whatever religion including Islam symbolizes ultimate reality. As the Tao Te Ching recognized little can be said literally about the ultimate. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” The major religions participate in the mystery of ultimate being by means of metaphorical narratives which they hold sacred.

The psychologist in me loves to hear a subject disclose their fantasies. What sadistic pleasure you must have had at your mental image of the theist eel twisting and turning. Ha ha! I love it! =D>

My argument in the OP is,
God is an impossibility - to exists as real.
In this case, God is so real, God sent his messengers with holy words to people. In addition God listens and answers prayers, plus did and does whatever is real.
This is what is claimed for the ultimate Being of beings by Muslims, Christians and other theists.

Note, in the case of the Tao not to be spoken, it is merely a reasoned thought and not something that is claimed by Taoist to be real empirically and philosophically.

If you are not arguing for the existence of God, then you are not countering my argument, thus off topic.

Btw, you cannot simply throw in Heidegger’s ‘ontic versus ontological.’
You need to justify these term in an argument to counter my argument.

I did read Heidegger quite seriously but not as serious as my reading of Kant. So at present I don’t have very thorough grasp of Heidegger’s details. Nevertheless I am very familiar with the main themes of Heidegger.

The expression die ontologische Differenz was first introduced in 1927, to mark die distinction between (BEING (das) Sein) and beings or entities (das Seiende) (XXIV, 22).
‘Being and the structure of being lie beyond every entity and every feature of an entity diat diere can possibly be. Being is die transcendens pure and simple’ (BT, 38)
-Inwoood

While Heidegger claim his Being and Time is unique, generally Heidegger is no different from Kant, i.e.

Kant = Phenomena versus Noumena [aka thing-in-itself]
Heidegger = Ontic [Phenomena] versus Ontological [structure of being]

In both cases the phenomena and ontic are empirically verifiable, e.g. via Science.

For Kant, the Noumena aka thing-in-itself is merely a reasoned-thought and cannot be real.
If reified as real, then it is an illusion.
This illusion is useful for the purpose of practical reason or morality.

In Heidegger’s case, he never claimed the ontological is real.
If so, where did he state that?
If Heidegger insist his ‘ontological’ being is real, then he has to prove it.
At best, what is ontological Being of beings to Heidegger is merely a thought.
You can rely on this ‘thought’ for whatever reasons, but it cannot be real empirically and philosophically.

Note a critique on Heidegger;

According to Husserl, Being and Time claimed to deal with ontology but only did so in the first few pages of the book. Having nothing further to contribute to an ontology independent of human existence, Heidegger changed the topic to Dasein. Whereas Heidegger argued that the question of human existence is central to the pursuit of the question of being, Husserl criticized this as reducing phenomenology to “philosophical anthropology” and offering an abstract and incorrect portrait of the human being.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_He … criticisms

Heidegger was influenced by non-theistic Buddhism;

According to Reinhard May and Graham Parkes, Heidegger may have been influenced by Zen and Daoist texts.[38][39] Some of Martin Heidegger’s philosophical terms, such as Ab-grund (void), Das Nichts (the Nothing) and Dasein have been considered in light of Buddhist terms which express similar ideas such as Emptiness.[40][41] Heidegger wrote that: “As void [Ab-grund], Being ‘is’ at once the nothing [das Nichts] as well as the ground.”[42] Heidegger’s “Dialogue on Language”, has a Japanese friend (Tezuka Tomio) state that "to us [Japanese] emptiness is the loftiest name for what you mean to say with the word ‘Being’”[43] Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics has also been compared to Zen’s radical anti-metaphysical attitude.[43] William Barrett held that Heidegger’s philosophy was similar to Zen Buddhism and that Heidegger himself had confirmed this after reading the works of DT Suzuki.[43]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_ … #Heidegger

As such, Heidegger’s Being and Time is not likely to extend beyond to the idea of God. At most Heidegger Being-of-being could be Buddha Nature which is not theistic.

Theists are driven by terrible evolutionary forces to grasp at an idea of God based on faith to soothe their existential crisis.
This is why it is so common [very evident] for theists to eel [twist and turn] as driven by a defense mechanism to defend their stance to sustain the soothed state. This is evident by the irrational proof churned out by theists over the history of theism.
When they run out of of ideas in “eeling”, SOME will even kill others who threatened their soothed state of theism. This is so evident with laws on death for blasphemy and killing of innocents for merely critiquing the theists’s religion. [you can’t dispute this]

It give me no pleasure on the ‘eeling’ but they do generate eerie fears that such evil and violence can arise anywhere where there are theists.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect

This doesn’t seem right to me. How can you simultaneously argue that absolute perfection is impossible and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect? In my view, it seems contradictory. If you believe that absolute perfection is impossible, you cannot then argue that God must be absolutely perfect, because you are appealing to a qualitative standard that you’re arguing cannot exist. Even if you’re arguing on the basis of what theists may claim, you still hold the position that absolute perfection is impossible (and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect) – therefore in your view, an absolutely perfect God cannot exist (or is impossible), because absolute perfection is an impossibility. In this case, the statement “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” doesn’t make sense.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@Fanman

Prismatic,

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect

This doesn’t seem right to me.

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect…so that Prismatic can take the next steps in his deduction.

As has been pointed out to Prismatic over and over, there are plenty of theists who do not believe God is absolutely perfect in some mathematical sense. In fact many have fallible Gods. And this even includes Abrahamic deities. The OT has a lot of subtext that we are dealing with a fallible deity with emotional swings who can experiment, get upset at what he creates, change his mind. The NT has Jesus doubting God on the cross. There is a wide tradition in Judaism which include complaining about God’s choices. There are gurus who get upset at God, one in particular who would run out of his quarters to yell at the sky when a favorite follower died. These were all monists. It gets even more clear with polytheists (which includ people who are also monotheists, a paradox I am sure is beyond Prismatic), indigenous people and all sort of modern outside-the-church theists.

Yes, many theists will say god is perfect. Though the actual texts and the mysterious tend to use poetic language, talk about unfathomable greatness, how far beyond us god is.

Just because many theists take this in mathematical terms - often when pressed by atheists, but also because of some idiotic theologians in the Middle ages - and we get these idiotic discussion of can God make a stone he cannot lift and all the other mathematical omni discussions which in the end Prismatics are a subset of, does not mean that a deity would have to be absolutely perfect…

nor does it give us the slightest idea

by
what
criteria

perfection

would be measured.

Since ‘being perfect’ is always perfect for someone or something. IOW it is contigent and subjective.

[Prismatic567]

@Fanman

Prismatic,

P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect

This doesn’t seem right to me. How can you simultaneously argue that absolute perfection is impossible and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect? In my view, it seems contradictory. If you believe that absolute perfection is impossible, you cannot then argue that God must be absolutely perfect, because you are appealing to a qualitative standard that you’re arguing cannot exist.
Even if you’re arguing on the basis of what theists may claim, you still hold the position that absolute perfection is impossible (and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect) – therefore in your view, an absolutely perfect God cannot exist (or is impossible), because absolute perfection is an impossibility. In this case, the statement “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” doesn’t make sense.

You are lost and got twisted in the above.

Here is a simple analogical example;

Say you claim;
A square-circle exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, a squared-circle MUST be of shape-X.

However I have demonstrated your imperative ‘shape-X’ is an impossibility.
Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility.

Applying the above to the idea of God;

Theists claim God exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, God MUST be of absolutely perfect ontologically as per St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.

However I have demonstrated the imperative ‘absolute perfection’ is an impossibility in reality.
Therefore God as real is an impossibility.

[Mowk]

Well you have proved it to yourself anyway. What if the picture is yet incomplete? This effigy can’t be.

[Prismatic567]

@Mowk

Well you have proved it to yourself anyway. What if the picture is yet incomplete? This effigy can’t be.

Humbly there is no absolute certainty.
My argument is complete subject to the above humility.

I had not stopped with my ‘complete’ argument.
I had provided the explanation why theists resort to clinging to an idea of an impossible God, i.e. as driven by an existential crisis.
In practice, there are many who claimed to have had direct experiences with God, but they all have some kind of mental issue from mild to serious.
A direct experience with God can be induced with drugs, hallucinogens, and whatever the circumstances, etc.

In addition, Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies has identified the root cause of the idea of God and taken non-theistic strategies to deal with the root cause.

There are many other explanations on why theists resort to cling to a God as a security blanket.

Thus we should not ignore these alternative views to how the idea of God arose within human consciousness.

Not only that, the plus side to humanity is, with the explaining away of the idea of God and weaning-off theism [when alternaltives are available], humanity will be able to eliminate all forms of theistic-driven terrible evil and violent acts that had beset humanity ever since the idea of God emerged. [note >270 million non-believers killed in the name of an illusory God].