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 Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:39 am

Biguous wrote:An absolutist/objectivist makes the assumption that the manner in which she construes a value judgment, is the manner in which all rational men and women are obligated in turn to construe it.


I like how you use "she" instead of "he". Very politically correct. But still biased. Why not use "they" instead? It's gender neutral.

Anyways, there are many reasons why people want other people to agree with them. One of them is that agreement reduces social friction. In other words, you can more easily achieve your goals. With that in mind, consider someone who wants others to agree with him merely because such an act would promote the attainment of his goals. Would you consider him an absolutist? I don't think it would be appropriate. To me, an absolutist is someone who thinks that thare are infallible opinions. In other words, opinions that can never turn out to be wrong. Being a absolutist is similar to being a dogmatist, if not the same. If you're trying to force other people to adopt your opinions that does not necessarily mean you think your opinions are infallible. It could simply mean you are trying to achieve your ends.

Thus others can either be "one of us" or "one of them".


The distinction between "one of us" and "one of them" exists because people are different. Those who are similar to me, they are "one of us". Those who are not, they are "one of them". You two are making the same exact distinction. Those who think like you, they are "one of you". Those who don't, such as KT folks, they are "one of them".

However, what you're saying here is probably something more along the lines of "one of us (who know what is absolutely true)" and "one of them (who don't know what is absolutely true)". But I think that's not a defining characteristic of absolutism. That's merely one of its consequences. It's what follows. The defining feature is the stance that there are infallible (a.k.a. absolutely true) opinions. If you think there are opinions that are absolutely true and opinions that are not then it follows that there are people who have absolutely true opinions and people who don't. And if you think that your opinions are absolutely true then you would consider yourself a member of the first group (i.e. the rational ones) and all others who disagree a member of the second (i.e. the retarded ones.) The members of the first group would thereby be "one of us" and the members of the second "one of them".
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:45 am

iambiguous wrote:What I would suggest however is that you and James start a new thread in which you discuss these speculations as they relate to an actual moral/political context/conflict most here will be familiar with.

In other words, instead of an exchange of "general descriptions" like this:

Magnus Anderson wrote:Beliefs can only be more or less probable/likely. When someone comes along and denies this you can be sure you are dealing with an absolutist.


What I want to know is how intelligence (i.e. thinking, reasoning, predicting, assuming, connecting, etc) works. That's what I am discussing here. That's where I disagree with JSS and many others on this forum. There are other disagreements too, such as those that have more to do with values and less to do with facts, but right now, my interest is in the mechanism, if there is one, by which intelligence works. If that is too confusing to you then I can only advise you to stay away from these discussions.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:46 am

God being good is impossible.

It is litterally impossible to say an omnipotent all powerful God is good, when he sits and lets starving people die.
Like if you were in a basement, with 10 little children tied up in a rope being starved to death by some sadistic asshole, you'd undo the rope and feed them.
But nope, nope, not this God of mercy, not this god of "love", he's just gonna let them all suffer and rot, such a good guy he is.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 am

phyllo wrote:Flaws in the syllogism.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.


Both premises are false.
2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.
Absolute perfection is not only possible, it's very common.

Every rock is perfect. It has the characteristics of 'rockness'.
Water is perfect.
Molecules.
Trees.
The universe as a whole.
How can these things be imperfect?
A three legged cat might be imperfect but the majority of cats are perfect.

You may have missed my points in the OP where I differentiated between "Absolute Perfection" and "Relative Perfection" with examples given as you has quoted.

Your examples of water, molecules, trees, universe as whole, are empirical things and I agreed they can be perfect, but only relatively perfect as conditioned by context.
A drop of water is perfect if it has all the qualities of what is supposedly "water-ness" that water is H20 as conditioned by its relevant Scientific Principles.
However there is no such thing as a drop of water or even water in the absolutely perfect sense, i.e. water-in-itself [Kant] because it is conditioned by context, thus not absolutely perfect.
We cannot nail or pin down what exactly is water-in-itself, because a drop of water is also H2O, a bundle of atoms, electrons-proton, quarks, etc.

Point is, we can impose relative perfection on empirical things but no empirical things can be absolutely perfect.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God.
As soon as you say 'generally', you admit that it does not always apply and so you have undermined premise 2.
It is a problem of semantics. By 'general', I meant all encompassing, generic, universally and applicable in all circumstances.
Thus whatever is said of a God, ultimately a God has to be absolutely perfect.

Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
This is not the logical response of a theist.

Typically:
Theist A knows of the existence of God A. Theist B comes along and says that God B is better than God A. Theist A simply says that God B does not exist and that Theist B is mistaken about God B.

If Theist A accepts that God B exists, then he is admitting the existence of multiple gods. That's a big no-no for a monotheist.

The characteristics of Jehovah don't change when somebody says that Vishnu exists.

This one-upsmanship does not need to take place. Therefore, God does not need to be perfect.
Not that I agree, but the typical response of any theist is 'you cannot prove god or my greater god does not exist'.
This is how the ontological God is conceived, i.e. to take the dominating stance of the ontological God.
As such, Theist A is better of grabbing the Ontological God, i.e. "my God is one no greater can be conceived." Once a theist grab the Ontological God, there is no way other theists can claim a greater God.
Therefore, to avoid believing in an inferior God, most theists in the know will settle for an Ontological God and this is monotheism.

In the case of an ontological God, it has to be absolutely perfect so that there is no greater perfect God than one's own absolutely perfect God [100%]. When one's God is an 100% absolutely perfect God, there is no more room for other theists to squeeze in to claim their God is more perfect than others.

A God by default [whether one is aware of it or not] will be an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
But as I had demonstrated, absolute perfection is an impossibility in reality.
Therefore God is an impossibility in reality.

God can only be made possible in thought but never in reality.
It is only made possible in thought for a desperate psychological reason, i.e. to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Alf » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:24 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
phyllo wrote:Flaws in the syllogism.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.


Both premises are false.
2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.
Absolute perfection is not only possible, it's very common.

Every rock is perfect. It has the characteristics of 'rockness'.
Water is perfect.
Molecules.
Trees.
The universe as a whole.
How can these things be imperfect?
A three legged cat might be imperfect but the majority of cats are perfect.

You may have missed my points in the OP where I differentiated between "Absolute Perfection" and "Relative Perfection" with examples given as you has quoted.

He did not misunderstand you.

And your pseudo-difference between "absolute perfection" and "relative perfection" is nonsense, because "absolute perfection" is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so "relative perfection" makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:25 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:False for a variety of reasons, but let's just pick one...

Prismatic567 wrote:Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

False. A convenient presumption for your bias, but hardly provable and certainly not an acceptable premise.

One of a great, great many "perfect" empirical existences is mass attraction. Mass attraction is very easily observable existence and empirically provable. Of course there are a great many others; speed of light, linear momentum, conservation of energy, centripetal momentum, ... These are all 100% true to reality and indispensable to the construct of the universe = "perfect".
You have missed my points.

On the contrary, I think that it is you who have missed points.

Prismatic567 wrote:
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Point is, if your "mass attraction" or whatever is empirically observable and based, it cannot be an absolute perfection ['an ideal' re Kant].

The point is that your blatant assertion is false. I just pointed out why it is false. You stated it as a premise to your argument. And that makes your argument untrue.

Prismatic567 wrote:A perfect circle is not empirically based but conceived by means of reason, thus theoretical.
A perfect circle do not exists [is an impossibility] in empirical reality.

Other than by numbers, equations and computations, show me where can I find [observe] an absolutely perfect circle that exist empirically.

You are merely picking one ideal that cannot physically exist. I agree that the man-made idea of a "perfect circle" cannot physically exist. But God is not a circle.

Your assertion has been that NO ideal can physically exist. So it is irrelevant that there is one or even a million ideals that can't physically exist. What is relevant is that there is at least one ideal that does physically exist. You pick the ones that don't and then make a generalization fallacy to proclaim that none exist.

The idea that non-charged mass particles gravimetrically attract each other is a physically real perfection. And it is absolutely true in the sense that it is true in every case.

You choose perfect notions that cannot physically exist to say that no perfection can physically exist.
I choose one perfect notion (among many) that DOES physically exist to say that your assertion is false. QED.

Phyllo has made the same rebuttal.
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 Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:27 pm

Alf wrote:And your pseudo-difference between "absolute perfection" and "relative perfection" is nonsense, because "absolute perfection" is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so "relative perfection" makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.


There are no absolutes. So if perfection has any meaning, it must be the one according to which perfection is not absolute.
You are the one making no sense whatsoever.

JSS wrote:The idea that non-charged mass particles gravimetrically attract each other is a physically real perfection. And it is absolutely true in the sense that it is true in every case.

You choose perfect notions that cannot physically exist to say that no perfection can physically exist.
I choose one perfect notion (among many) that DOES physically exist to say that your assertion is false. QED.


No absolute can physically exist.
Noone cares that you DECLARE that there are absolutes that physically exist.
The things you cite as absolute, perfect, etc are none of that.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Alf » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:13 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Alf wrote:And your pseudo-difference between "absolute perfection" and "relative perfection" is nonsense, because "absolute perfection" is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so "relative perfection" makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.


There are no absolutes. So if perfection has any meaning, it must be the one according to which perfection is not absolute.

You are wrong.

You don't even know the simplest basics.

1) "Perfection" means 100%, mathematically said. "Absolute" means 100%, mathematically said.

2) "Impossibility" has nothing to do with likelihood. It's like JSS already said:

James S Saint wrote:And "impossible" doesn't mean "unlikely" (to real people anyway). Impossible means that it is 100% certain that it does not exist at all.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:33 pm

You don't know what the words you are using mean.
This is typical of parrots i.e. people whose only contact with reality is through what other people say.
You are simply clueless about the manner in which reasoning functions.

What does 100% mean?
I will give you an example of when we say that an assumption has a probability value of 100%.
(Yes, it is a probability value, despite James' attempts to negate that it is.)
Suppose that you have a billion observations of white swans and zero observations of black swans.
The number of any kind of swans we have observed is one billion.
The number of white swans we have observed is one billion.
The number of black swans we have observed is zero.
The ratio between the number of white swans (specifics) and the number of any kind of swans (generics) is exactly 1.
That's what 100% means.
The ratio between the number of black swans and the number of any kind of swans is exactly 0.
That's what 0% means.
On the other hand, if you had 800,000,000 observations of white swans and 200,000,000 observations of black swans the ratio would be different and as a consequence of that the probability that you will encounter a white swan in the future will no longer be 100% but 80%.
Probability, or certainty if you will, is a human measurement based on a limited set of data.
If you only have 10 observations of swans and if every single one is an observation of a white swan then you will be 100% sure that all swans are white.
But, if you had 100 observations of swans where 80 swans were white and 20 were black you'd have different expectations.
What I am trying to tell you is that even clueless people can be 100% sure about what's true.
The most important thing is that just because every single swan in the past was white does not mean that every single swan in the future will also be white.
The future is under NO obligation to mimic the past.
If you are 100% certain that something will happen that does not mean that that something will happen.
Similarly, if you are 100% certain that something won't happen that does not mean that that something won't happen.

The universe does not work according to your expectations, moron.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:06 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:The universe does not work according to your expectations, moron.

Perhaps if you repeat that to yourself in the mirror over and over and over, one day it will finally soak in.

Your arguments have nothing to do with this thread.
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 Alf » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:30 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:You ....

moron.

Look, this is the only thing you can do: Personal attacks, ad homs, but no single argument.

We all know what "100%" means. We don't need your stupid personal attacks in order to understand what "100%" means".

And by the way: JSS and others have already said what logic means. But you are merely asking:

Magnus Anderson wrote:What exactly is logic?

Will you ever grasp what logic is?

James S Saint wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:The universe does not work according to your expectations, moron.

Perhaps if you repeat that to yourself in the mirror over and over and over, one day it will finally soak in.

Your arguments have nothing to do with this thread.

His arguments have nothing to do with this thread.

It seems that he has inferiority complexes. Therefore he has to insult. No one of his posts lacks insults.
Last edited by Alf on Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:38 pm

If Prismatic and other atheists want to say: "God does not exist", why do they not do that instead of playing their stupid kind of language game?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Alf » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:14 pm

Arminius wrote:If Prismatic and other atheists want to say: "God does not exist", why do they not do that instead of playing their stupid kind of language game?

That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? I guess that you know why they don't do it.

They confuse many things with their wishful thinking and ideological beliefs. So, why should they not generally confuse objectivity, logic, God with subjectivity, wishful thinking, ideological beliefs?
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:54 pm

Alf wrote:Look, this is the only thing you can do: Personal attacks, ad homs, but no single argument.


Perhaps you should focus on my arguments instead of narrowing your intention to my insults?
You deserve those insults, by the way.

We all know what "100%" means. We don't need your stupid personal attacks in order to understand what "100%" means".


It is pretty clear that you don't know what "100%" means. If you did know what it means then you wouldn't be denying the fact that "impossible" means nothing other than "extremely unlikely".

JSS and others have alraedy said what logic means.


James has no clue what logic is.

Will you ever grasp what logic is?


Don't worry. I do know what logic is. Better than the two of you.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:57 pm

James S Saint wrote:Your arguments have nothing to do with this thread.


Of course they do. You are denying the premise that there is no such a thing as absolute perfection. I am affirming it.
You are one hell of a moron.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:11 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Your arguments have nothing to do with this thread.


Of course they do. You are denying the premise that there is no such a thing as absolute perfection. I am affirming it.
You are one hell of a moron.

No. You are saying "what people mean when they say..."
And despite being wrong, it is irrelevant because what you expect and predict concerning what these people are saying is NOT what they are discussing in this thread.

As usual with you, you are guilty of your own accusations. You have (again) been unwittingly criticizing yourself with these posts.
Magnus Anderson wrote:The universe does not work according to your expectations, moron.
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 Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:16 pm

The premise of this thread is that the concept of absolute perfection, and the concept of absolute in general, is meaningless.
That is what you're denying and that is what I am trying to affirm.
You are a moron.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:24 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:The premise of this thread is that the concept of absolute perfection, and the concept of absolute in general, is meaningless.

It is not "meaningless". At least learn what the word "meaningless" means.
:icon-rolleyes:
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 Magnus Anderson » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:29 pm

That's what you should do. Remember, you are guilty of your own accusations.

Any word that does not have a reference to something that can be experienced, observed or measured is meaningless.
Simply thinking that the word you are using is meaningful does not make it meaningful.

"Absolute perfection" is otherwise described as "the highest point of perfection".
It means that there is NO point of perfection higher than it in the entire universe.
How can you know for certain that there is no such a point?
Sure, you can think it's highly improbable that there is such a point.
But to think that there is no such a point for certain?
Only if you think that the universe works according to your expectations.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:45 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Simply thinking that the word you are using is meaningful does not make it meaningful.

Actually it does. And everyone ELSE knows that. But until you learn what the word means, you will remain in your tower of delusion.
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 Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:35 am

I am aware of the fact that you deny the existence of meaningless words i.e. words that do not refer to something that can be experienced.
Elsewhere you said that in order to use a word in a sentence it must already be meaningful.
That makes me think you're insane.
Who is this everyone else?
You mean morons who "think" in the same exact degenerate way that you do?
They are hardly everyone else.
According to you, a statement such as "the love in great respiration smells without presidential atoms regarding celebrities" is meaningful.
It's just that you don't understand what it means.
I am proud of your brilliant mind.

If you cannot tell us how we can experience perfect circles then the concept of perfect circles is meaningless.
That's what it means for a word to be meaningless: it has no reference to something that can be experienced.
I can tell you how we can experience zombies even though we cannot experience them anywhere within the environment that we inhabit.
But noone can tell us how we can experience perfect circles or absolute perfection for the simple reason that these concepts are . . . meaningless.
Of course, you are used to these concepts so it takes a lot of effort on your part to realize and accept that they are meaningless.
A strong habit is difficult to overcome.
But that's none of my business.
I don't have such problems.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:27 am

James S Saint wrote:False for a variety of reasons, but let's just pick one...

Prismatic567 wrote:Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

James S Saint wrote:False. A convenient presumption for your bias, but hardly provable and certainly not an acceptable premise.
Show me one absolute perfection that can exists in empirical reality?

Prismatic567 wrote:Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Point is, if your "mass attraction" or whatever is empirically observable and based, it cannot be an absolute perfection ['an ideal' re Kant].

The point is that your blatant assertion is false. I just pointed out why it is false. You stated it as a premise to your argument. And that makes your argument untrue.
You still don't get it.
Your [b]mass attraction
is an empirical process and thus a relative perfection at most[/b].


I have stated relative perfection do exists in the empirical world but they are always conditional upon some conceptual framework or contexts.

Example, if you answered 50/50 questions correctly in an objective tests, that is a 'perfect' score, but it is a relative perfection as conditioned by the contexts of the test.
Athletes used to score perfect 7/7 in skating & diving, 10/10 in gymnastics and other sports but these 'perfect' scores are actually subjective, i.e. relative upon the framework of the judging process.

If you bring in any thing 'perfect' that is scientific, it is only conditioned [relative] to the human-made scientific framework and system.

Point it is impossible for an absolute perfection-in-itself to exists in reality independent of any human related conditions. [Kant]

Prismatic567 wrote:A perfect circle is not empirically based but conceived by means of reason, thus theoretical.
A perfect circle do not exists [is an impossibility] in empirical reality.

Other than by numbers, equations and computations, show me where can I find [observe] an absolutely perfect circle that exist empirically.

You are merely picking one ideal that cannot physically exist. I agree that the man-made idea of a "perfect circle" cannot physically exist. But God is not a circle.
A 'perfect circle' cannot exist physically, but such an ideal [though physically impossible] at least is related to a conceptual empirical reality, i.e. circles.

What is extreme with the "idea" [not even a concept] of a God is, it is an ideal that is not related to the empirical at all. The ideal of God has no grounding at all and is baseless. The ideal of God is an illusion based on primal reason [Kant] to deal [thus has utility] with an existential crisis.
The grounding of an absolute perfect God is merely based on an inherent psychological problem and can be cured psychologically. This is what the Buddhists did since 2500 years ago.

Your assertion has been that NO ideal can physically exist. So it is irrelevant that there is one or even a million ideals that can't physically exist. What is relevant is that there is at least one ideal that does physically exist. You pick the ones that don't and then make a generalization fallacy to proclaim that none exist.
Yes, NO ideal [empirically related or non-empirical] can physically exists. The idea of God is imperatively the Mother of all ideals.

The idea that non-charged mass particles gravimetrically attract each other is a physically real perfection. And it is absolutely true in the sense that it is true in every case.
You choose perfect notions that cannot physically exist to say that no perfection can physically exist.
I choose one perfect notion (among many) that DOES physically exist to say that your assertion is false. QED.
I repeat, the example above is based on scientific empirical observations, thus a relative perfection conditioned upon the human-mad scientific framework and method.

The idea of God is the ideal of all ideals, i.e. mother of all ideals.
As I had argued, the claim of an ideal God has to be absolutely perfect [ontological god] so that no others will have the opportunity to claim their God is more perfect.
In order not to settle for an inferior God to another, all theists [implicitly] by default will have to settle for an absolute perfect God [ontological] {P2}.

I'll tell you what sort of 'God' is possible.
An anthropomorphic god is possible though of low probability.
It is possible a human-liked [empirical] god, the size of a billion stars, with very powerful energy could [very low probability] exists someway in the universe. Humans will think such a god is 'perfect' but it is only relatively perfect as other similar anthropomorphic gods can also exists elsewhere competing with one another, leading to infinite regression.
Would any theist proper accept an anthropomorphic god ['man with beard in the sky'] in our current intellectual and spiritual conditions?

Thus my argument stands;
    PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
    P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:39 am

Prismatic wrote:You may have missed my points in the OP where I differentiated between "Absolute Perfection" and "Relative Perfection" with examples given as you has quoted.

Alf wrote:He did not misunderstand you.

And your pseudo-difference between "absolute perfection" and "relative perfection" is nonsense, because "absolute perfection" is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so "relative perfection" makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.
Re my reply to JSS above where I explained the difference between 'absolute' and 'relative' perfection.

Perfection is never always absolute.

'Perfection' that are conditioned upon the empirical, e.g. perfect scores 100/100 on an objective tests, a perfect 4.0 GPA, 10/10 points in gymnastic performance, 7/7 in a diving competition, etc. are relative perfections.

As absolute perfection, is unconditional upon any human elements, e.g. perfect circle, triangle, square, etc. and the mother of all ideals or perfections, i.e. the absolutely perfect God [ontological].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:56 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Prismatic wrote:You may have missed my points in the OP where I differentiated between "Absolute Perfection" and "Relative Perfection" with examples given as you has quoted.

Alf wrote:He did not misunderstand you.

And your pseudo-difference between "absolute perfection" and "relative perfection" is nonsense, because "absolute perfection" is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so "relative perfection" makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.
Re my reply to JSS above where I explained the difference between 'absolute' and 'relative' perfection.

Perfection is never always absolute.

'Perfection' that are conditioned upon the empirical, e.g. perfect scores 100/100 on an objective tests, a perfect 4.0 GPA, 10/10 points in gymnastic performance, 7/7 in a diving competition, etc. are relative perfections.

As absolute perfection, is unconditional upon any human elements, e.g. perfect circle, triangle, square, etc. and the mother of all ideals or perfections, i.e. the absolutely perfect God [ontological].

But the properties of circles,triangles, squares are not the same in Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries ... so they are "conditional upon human elements". Call it a framework or context if you want.

Your division of perfection into relative and absolute is arbitrary. Upon reflection, it makes no sense.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12121
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:00 am

Prismatic wrote:Example, if you answered 50/50 questions correctly in an objective tests, that is a 'perfect' score, but it is a relative perfection as conditioned by the contexts of the test.
Athletes used to score perfect 7/7 in skating & diving, 10/10 in gymnastics and other sports but these 'perfect' scores are actually subjective, i.e. relative upon the framework of the judging process.

If you bring in any thing 'perfect' that is scientific, it is only conditioned [relative] to the human-made scientific framework and system.


That's right. Words such as "highest" and "maximum" only make sense in relation to a finite set of values. And this finite set of values must be subjectively defined. The universe itself isn't bounded. The universe can be "anything it wants to be". As Hume said, the future is under no obligation to mimic the past. Any meaningful concept of the word "perfect" has to be relative to some subjectively defined boundaries. When I say "she's a perfect woman" what I mean is that she has everything that I want in a woman. "Everything that I want in a woman" is a finite set of requirements that can be tested against reality (i.e. any particular woman.) When a woman fulfils every single requirement, I say she's perfect. When she does not, I say she is not perfect. We can see that the ordinary use of the word "perfect" is not absolute as Mr. Alf declares.

What these people have trouble with is accepting that everything is relative to, or dependent upon, context and that nothing is absolute or independent from context. Decontextualization (or quite simply reductionism) is an epistemological process the purpose of which is to simplify information in order to digest/understand it.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users