Prismatic,
I don’t see how “God” is analogous to a “perfect circle”? Why do you think they are similar, conceptually?
Note my explanation above, I mentioned the analogy and then the constrast;
Note the contrast, while
-one can contest [in failure] one’s drawn circle is absolutely perfect with at least with the empirical evidence of a drawn circle on paper or other material,
-the theists are unable to produce anything empirical to be verified as what they claim is the absolute perfect God.
Both examples,
-the empirically-based perfect circle derived from empirical sources and
-the idea-based God [without any empirical element at all]
end up as ideals which are impossible to exist in reality as real.
God in this case is claimed to be an absolute perfection.
which would mean it was not visible, which would be a limitation. How could that possibly be either absolute perfect?
This sounds like an absolutely transcendent sunset.
And if we move this to God, it would mean that an absolute God, could never communicate with us, could never be felt or noticed. Only the deists believe in one of those, and even their God was once interacting with materia.
Further there is no reason to think that God is not evolving.
And in fact the Bible clearly indicates a God that is changing over time, rather than a fixed unchanging something.
There is no reason to think that we have to focus only on particular words, when we have God making changes and allowing changes and displaying changes over time, some of which overturn earlier decisions God made.
There is no reason to accept Prismatic, an atheist, as the final theological arbiter of religion.
KT,
Well spotted. I don’t understand why P claims that absolute perfection is independent of human observation? Especially given that he’s acknowledged that perfection is a value judgement. He doesn’t see the conflict that creates, or the transcendence in his ideas. Yet he believes that he can, with clarity, see what he claims are theist’s transcendental ideas.
Prismatic,
Do you understand why I said “conceptually” in reference to the difference between a perfect circle and God? Can you anticipate where I’m headed in asking you that question?
Note my argument above;
viewtopic.php?p=2748939#p2748939
You don’t have a clue what it is about?
I anticipate where you are heading but they don’t click.
You cannot conflate an empirically led perfect-circle with transcendental idea of God.
Note;
A Perfect-circle is extrapolated from empirical circles.
A Perfect-God is extrapolated from nothing empirical but merely a transcendental idea.
Btw, you can take any empirically-based-thing* and qualify it with terms like ‘perfect’ ‘absolute’ ‘utmost’ maximally great, and that will not convert them from its empirical origin to a transcendental idea like God.
*e.g. perfect table, apple, round marble, scenery, SUNSET, sunrise, ocean wave, stone, house, whatever-empirical, etc. etc.
Prismatic,
As far as I can tell, you are claiming that because there cannot be a perfect circle, this also precludes God from existing because God is claimed to be perfect.
My claim is that God and a perfect circle are conceptually, completely different entities. Such that you cannot use one to disprove the existence of the other, just because they both purportedly possess one similar quality (perfection) in a completely different way or system of understanding.
Are you saying that this is what I think you are doing, or that I am doing this?
Even if this was right, it doesn’t prove that it is impossible for God to exist – your reasoning does not substantiate proof. People’s ideas about God or gods may not be right, but this does not mean that the existence of some kind of “God” is impossible. Not that you’ll grasp this (or you’ll simply deny it based upon your reasoning), but I think it is the case.
'sometimes absolute is used this way in philosophy. I think it is important to understand - I am just realizing - that a good description of Prismatic is someone who selectively appeals to authority when it suits his position, and then is rigid around that appeal to authority. so he read a description of ‘absolute’ and given the conclusions he thinks he can draw about God working from that definition of absolute, he rigidly holds to that and treats it as
THE
definition of absolute - no controversy, no variety of positions.
Just as he takes certain theist ideas about God as the correct ones that are wrong. We must use this definition of God (as absolutely perfect and transcendent), period. And since we must use this one based on his, ironically enough, appeal to the authority of some theists, then we can rule out God in general. Any mixed messages even in the abrahamic religions are dismissed as not authority.
It is the same with his analysis of fear as the cause of religion. He focuses on his authority, ignores all data that does not fit his theory and makes his hypothesis the deepest one - generally by simply claiming that it is. He can then point to the research that supports parts of his theory and appeal to its authority and ignore anything else.
In fact as I type this I just get pissed off. And while I recognize that to some extent we all likely fall into this kind of pattern to varying degrees at various times, he presents this pattern of
selective appeal to authority
dismissal of any anomolies or other authorities or evidence and shallow or irrelevant
incorporates without mentioning it counterarguments without ever conceding anything
describes his positions as proven - without understanding that proofs only work in closed systems like math and symbolic logic
It is a kind of psychological autism. Now most people with autism actually understand that their neurological uniqueness gives them strengths and weaknesses and generally are curious about what they are missing, he is the final mind. Utterly satisfied with himself and his proofs.
He has no idea that he is not paying attention to a significant chunk of other people, himself and reality.
He has no idea that is happening.
Like a blind man who dismisses anything someone else sees, which of course blind people do not do, since they realize that other people can manage to sense even completely quiet things at a distance and without echolocation.
I think what we have here on a microscale is what people experience on a macroscale with people who have ideologies (like say the way marxism led to communism as it played out in the old USSR. Ideas on paper were more important that what actually happens and what is actually present in reality. This can of course also be possible with 'free market ’ capitalists also.) or people who are parts of corporation, that use reason to dismiss critics and may even come to believe their own PR, but need not. I think Prismatic does believe what he is saying. Though I do think he ignores, out of fear, at least on occasion, the problems people raise about his ideas, and he does not have the integrity to actually question himself. He is moving forward and will never question himself in any deep way, unless he has some life changing event. And perhaps not even then.
And I would like to say, however cruel this sounds: doesn’t it feel like you are not talking to a fully rounded person? Doesnt it feel like a mind that is closer to something programmable than other more full and complicated people?
I realize this is taboo to bring this kind of thing up, but at the same time I don’t think pretending these kinds of things are not happening is healthy either. This is someone who is not alive, now, in the full range of ways a person can be. Their mind does a portion of those things minds can do and there are vast swathes of modes of life, interacting with others, that are likely not happening. It is an impoverished mind and likely mode of living.
Which would only bring out empathy in me if it did not mirror similar minds and organizations out there that have tremendous power and are rapidly terraforming the world we live in, wihtout really knowing what they are doing, being partial minds.
And when I say ‘partial mind’ I am not saying he’s dumb. He is clearly highly intelligent, in a very, very narrow area.
KT,
It isn’t cruel. Discussion with P is like conversing with a philosophical bot. There is no “flow” or poetry to what he says. No emotion, just bytes of raw misinterpreted data. He doesn’t invoke anything positive in me, and I have to think 5 or 6 times before I agree with him, when I do.
It’s like he is trying to rob the world of colour. He reminds me of the villain from “who framed Roger rabbit”. He hated toons and tried to rid the world of them (as Prismatic wants to do with theists ironically), only to find out in the end that guess what, he was a toon himself! Believe me, if he could find a way, Prismatic would say much worse to both you and I, and not even blink an eyelid. To me he seems like someone who is a law unto himself, and probably has a position of moderate authority. That’s why he continually believes that he has proven things, and has a preoccupation with God - a God complex.
He is very, very clever, but I think there is communication problem both inwardly and outwardly, which stifles his natural ability. For example, I asked him if he saw any problems with his reasoning. His reply was “no” and that he wasn’t stupid. He seems to think that if you see problems with your reasoning you are stupid, but recognising one’s own cognitive errors is a sign of many good things intellectually in my books. I ask myself why debate with him, but I can’t help trying to resolve what I see as the problems in what he says. You are not wrong to say what you think, when a strong dictating personality is around. He would not hesitate.
Nope.
As stated above, my example of a perfect-circle is merely an analogy to give you a clue.
I could have use perfect triangle, perfect table or perfect anything empirical.
As explained, yes, God and perfect-circle are different entities.
I thought you did, but since you explained above, noted you are not conflating it.
I did not claim my explanation above, proved it is impossible for God to exist as real empirically and philosophical.
My actual argument is in the OP
and in this thread.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
I thought I have mentioned this earlier.
Both you and KT are merely making noises and complaining with ad hominen instead of presenting counter-arguments to my argument which is the essence of a philosophy forum.
I am taking a pause here unless I see substantial counter argument to my arguments.
Prismatic,
You should quote the praise as well. Or does that just go over your head? Consider that people (yes people) have generally reacted to you in a negative way. You might want to think about that and reflect upon the effect you’re having. Instead of just focusing on arguments. I think there is more to philosophy forums than winning arguments, because believe it or not, it is (socially) important what people think about YOU as a person. Not just what you argue.