God is an Impossibility

[Snark]

I didn't read all the posts following the original because the premise is so absurd I didn't think it was necessary.

It matters little what idea of the Father you entertain so long as you are acquainted with the ideal of His infinite and eternal nature. Clearly, the author of the OP has no idea what an infinite and eternal nature entails. Having no further (non-)argument, the author resorts to a pseudo psychological explanation why people believe, ignores the fact that his (or her) speaking about evil put him/her in a very precarious philosophical position, and, although correctly saying that 'existence' is not a predicate, fails to recognize it's not meant to be -- it's not meant to say anything about God primarily because God has no properties and, secondly, because nothing can be said except analogically.

[Prismatic567]

Currently, there is merely one culture in which homosexuality is not allowed. I am speaking of the so-called "islamic" culture (Prismatic's enemy? ).

Homosexuality is also a taboo within Christianity as expressed in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Islam merely plagiarized this point from the Bible and imbue greater hatred for homosexuality to the extent homosexuals are thrown off building as a punishments in the present.

Nope I am not an "enemy" of Islamic culture.
The term "enemy" invoke emotions which can lead to fatality.
Rather, I am very critical of the evils inherent in Islam [part not whole of] and suggest solutions to deal with this evilness.

[Prismatic567]

I didn't read all the posts following the original because the premise is so absurd I didn't think it was necessary.

It matters little what idea of the Father you entertain so long as you are acquainted with the ideal of His infinite and eternal nature. Clearly, the author of the OP has no idea what an infinite and eternal nature entails. Having no further (non-)argument, the author resorts to a pseudo psychological explanation why people believe, ignores the fact that his (or her) speaking about evil put him/her in a very precarious philosophical position, and, although correctly saying that 'existence' is not a predicate, fails to recognize it's not meant to be -- it's not meant to say anything about God primarily because God has no properties and, secondly, because nothing can be said except analogically.

I understand your impulsive response [its subliminal desperate psychology] to put down my argument with merely brushing it off with superficial negating statements.

What don't you demonstrate why the 'infinite' and 'eternal' nature are not groundless. There are many and one such counter against the ideal is that of Plato's Universals and Forms. Note the idea of God is the most extreme of ideal. Point is you do not have any idea of what 'ideas' are in the philosophical sense.

As for evil, I am referring to empirical evil acts out of evilness and not to ontological/metaphysical evil existing independently and lurking around with evilness. Note my definition of 'evil' in the other thread.

'Analogically' is merely speculation unless one can bring on empirical evidences to justify [rationalize] whatever is claimed to exist empirically-rationally.

Brushing off the argument with baseless [crude] statements may soothe your psychological angst [pain] but the fact is 'God is an Impossibility' as argued in the OP and supported by various explanations in the posts that follow.

Note,

1. 'God is a possibility' = psychological comfort/security + terrible evil acts by SOME theists

2. 'God is an impossibility' = zero terrible theistically-inspired-evil-acts* by SOME theists.

Where we have alternatives to provide the same psychological comfort/security, "God is an Impossibility" [as proven] is the more rational and wiser option.

* there will still be other non-theistic evil acts, they must be dealt with but not in this theistic specific forum

[Snark]

I understand your impulsive response [its subliminal desperate psychology] to put down my argument with merely brushing it off with superficial negating statements.

My bad. I thought this was a philosophy forum. As such, I didn't think pseudo psychology had a role.

What don't you demonstrate why the 'infinite' and 'eternal' nature are not groundless. There are many and one such counter against the ideal is that of Plato's Universals and Forms. Note the idea of God is the most extreme of ideal. Point is you do not have any idea of what 'ideas' are in the philosophical sense.

According to Wiki, in philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. That can't be what I mean because God is not an object that can be represented or construed as a mental image. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present themselves as mental images. This means that a philosophical idea practically speaks on things that requires no experiment and is commonly based on a metaphysical concept like a supreme good or the infinite and eternal nature of God.

As for evil, I am referring to empirical evil acts out of evilness and not to ontological/metaphysical evil existing independently and lurking around with evilness. Note my definition of 'evil' in the other thread.

Well, it's always fun to learn new oxymorons like "empirical evil."

'Analogically' is merely speculation unless one can bring on empirical evidences to justify [rationalize] whatever is claimed to exist empirically-rationally.

Now, that's just plain silly. If one could bring to bear empirical evidences to justify whatever is claimed, analogy wouldn't be necessary.

Brushing off the argument with baseless [crude] statements may soothe your psychological angst [pain] but the fact is 'God is an Impossibility' as argued in the OP and supported by various explanations in the posts that follow.

Note,

1. 'God is a possibility' = psychological comfort/security + terrible evil acts by SOME theists

2. 'God is an impossibility' = zero terrible theistically-inspired-evil-acts* by SOME theists.

Where we have alternatives to provide the same psychological comfort/security, "God is an Impossibility" [as proven] is the more rational and wiser option.

* there will still be other non-theistic evil acts, they must be dealt with but not in this theistic specific forum

Sorry. I'm going to end this. You're too overbearing and irrational.

[iambiguous]

Ontology of 'Existence'.
Note Kant prove 'ontology' is not a possibility.
In addition Kant also demonstrated 'existence' is not a predicate.
Existence has to be accompanied by a qualification, i.e. exist as what?
e.g. God exists asserts nothing of substance at all.
It is that "what" that need to be justified within an empirical-rational reality.

What does it mean empirically to prove that "ontology"/ontology is not a possibility? How on earth would Kant go about demonstrating what that means beyond asking others to accept the definition and the meaning that he gave to the words in his argument/analysis itself?

How, in this respect, is Kant really any different from the rest of us here?

It is argued by some that God exists as the Creator --- the entity [first cause] responsible for the existence of Existence.

Whatever that means. But that's the point. In a world of words it means whatever one wishes to assert that it does. As long as you are not actually obligated to produce this God substantively.

On the other hand, how do the atheists go about demonstrating that a God, the God is not the Creator...the ontological/teleological font upon which mere mortals can fall back when they are unable to demonstrate any of this.

From my frame of mind we are all in the same boat here. We all embody [from the cradle to the grave] that enormous gap between what we think we know about these things at any particular "here and know" juncture, and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that we do to others.

Kant had his chance, right?

....the only ultimate basis a theist can claim God exists is via faith, very strong faith. How can you use the basis of faith as an irresistible force of intellectual contraption?

But the same can be said of the atheist's argument regarding [among other things] the impossibility of God's existence. Beyond arguing that it seems more reasonable for those who claim the existence of something to demonstrate that this is so, the atheist is still left with no solid, irrefutable empirical evidence that a God, the God does not exist.

All I am noting here is that, either way, one or the other frame of mind may well be correct. It has just not been so demonstrated to me. In other words, to my very own entirely individual and unique existential "I".

And that is what the objectivists are most wary of in my opinion. That this is also applicable to them.

But I will always be the first here to flat out admit that I may well be wrong.

But, right or wrong, how would one actually go about demonstrating it?

You claim that you have...

...proven God is an Impossibility in accordance to some credible framework and at the same time demonstrate why theists believe in a God is due psychological grounds driven by an existential crisis [see below]. There are lots of research done in this area and the focus should be in this area rather than banging on an a God which is proven to be illusory.

And, sure, to the extent that you embrace this "general description" as proof, it is proof. To you.

To me however it in no way compellingly demonstrates how in the staggering vastness of "all there is" you have proven that God is an impossibility. After all, how "on earth" could any mere mortal possibly know something like this?!

From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is no less a psychological contraption. Unless of course you are able to convince me that it is essentially true. Yet even than that wouldn't necessarily make it so.

We are all stuck in the same boat here: Grappling to connect the dots between an infinitesimal speck of existence -- "I" -- and the mind-boggling extent of Existence itself.

Again, I largely share your own assumptions about God but...

...only in the sense that I recognize my own frame of mind [here and now] as just one more existential contraption. I would never argue that I have actually proven anything.

All claims of proof here [relating to questions this consequential] are seen by me as psychological contraptions.

It's just that the "scientific framework" seems considerably more rigorous in demonstrating what it is rational to believe in the either/or world.

If you recognized the psychological contraption then you should focus on the issue psychologically.

But that would require closing the gap between "I" as a psychological contraption and an understanding of human psychology in the context of "all there is".

Note the non-theistic spiritualities [e.g. Buddhism] recognize the inherent existential crisis from the psychological perspective and dealt with its associated problem psychologically and spiritually.
All human beings are infected with the inherent existential crisis, theists cling to an illusory God, non-theistic spiritualities deal with it psychologically, many non-theists resort to drugs and opioids to deal with the associated psychological pains.

What interest me most about Buddhism [and other Eastern narratives] is really no different from what interest me most about Christianity [and other Western narratives]: how to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and what we imagine our fate to be on the other side of the grave. As that relates to whatever we conclude when confronted with the question, "how ought one to live?"

In particular when one has come to believe that mere mortals inhabit an essentially absurd and meaningless world that seems to culminate in oblivion for all of eternity.

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above in regard to a particular existential context in which value judgments come into conflict. Including the judgment that revolves around establishing what value judgments are and how we come to acquire them historically, culturally and experientially.

[note: if anyone knows of any other folks who do embrace one or another "Eastern philosophy", by all means, bring them into the discussion. Either on this thread or on my own: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929 ]

DNA wise, the drive for morality is inherent in all humans.

Yes, we are hard wired biologically as a species to exist. And that means to subsist. And that means acquiring food and water and shelter. And reproducing. And defending ourselves against enemies. Morality thus is just the recognition that in interacting over time [historically] and space [culturally] to sustain all of this, our wants and needs will sometimes collide. Rules of behavior must be established.

But whose rules? Based on what assumptions? Enforced by what actual power?

Well, if God exists then His rules. His assumptions. His power.

At present where did all the Nations get the rules and agree to ban all slavery when slavery is not absolutely banned by God in the holy books?

Marx would argue that slavery was impaled on capitalism. Historically, organically, the market political economy prefers the "wage slave". The labor of the working class is exploited but when you don't "own" folks, they are on their own for everything else. But, sure, it can be argued the other way around: that out of the Enlightenment came political ideals. And that out of these ideals came such beliefs as the "natural rights of man". White men then, and then later men of color. And then women.

But slavery still exists in the world today: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/world/glo ... index.html

And there are any number of folks no doubt who could rationalize it again if economic conditions made it profitable.

My point is that sans God it is still largely an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That there does not appear to be a way in which to establish philosophically [logically/ethically] that slavery is necessarily/inherently wrong.

After all, sociopaths and nihilists are able to justify any and all human interactions that they construe to be in their own best interests.

Only a God is able to embody both the omniscience and the omnipotence that renders such things as slavery sins. With sins there is never any question of not getting caught, of not being punished. That's why the Gods are invented in the first place!!

In my view, you still cling to the illusion [if it is an illusion] that moral "progress" can be defined and then established essentially by mere mortals in a Godless universe. I, on the other hand, as a moral nihilist, construe these things more as existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And that is precisely why I ask folks [religious or not] to bring their own moral agendas "down to earth"; "out into the world" of actual human social, political and economic conflicts; conflicts we can probe and discuss given the differing sets of assumptions we bring into play here.

Thus you bring one set of assumptions regarding slavery above and I bring another. Now how would philosophers/epistemologists/logicians/ethicists/scientists/theologians/naturalists etc., go about establishing the most or the only rational assessment.

The Eastern non-theistic religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, etc] are already resolving that same existential crisis without any evil baggage, so it is possible to wean off theism in the future or ASAP.

Here [and now] I don't agree.

With respect to conflicting value judgments, "Eastern non-theistic" religions just reconfigure human interactions into another set of assumptions.

In my view this part...

If I am always of the opinion that
1] my own values are rooted in dasein and
2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction.
Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

...is no less applicable to them.

Unless someone who subscribes to an Eastern philosophy would be willing to explore this with me pertaining to a particular context in which values do come into conflict.

I am not too sure of your point re Dasein and "I".

It basically revolves around distinguishing between those things that can be established as true objectively for all of us...

Catholicism is a Christian religious denomination here on planet earth.

...and those things which many believe in their head to be true -- the God of Catholicism does in fact exist -- but are unable to demonstrate [at least to me] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

After all, whether in reference to God or to Santa Claus or to unicorns, there is what we claim to know is true and there is what we can demonstrate to others is in fact true.

And this is applicable to both Western and Eastern narratives/agendas.

You will note my proof of 'God is an Impossibility' intends to link to the terrible terrors, violence and the full range of evils committed by evil prone believers who are inspired by the evil laden elements in the immutable holy books of theists who believe their God is real with the strongest possibility.

Now my proof 'God is an Impossibility' will cut off the grounds of theism and thus no more grounds for theists to commit the terrible evils.

And yet there have been any number of secular narratives -- ideologies, political dogmas, isms etc. -- that have inflicted just as much human pain and suffering over the course of human history. The 20th century in particular.

For me [God or No God], human interactions will always revolve around one or another combination of 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

From my frame of mind, the worst of all possible worlds is reflected in the first two. But I also clearly recognize that "here and now" this is no less an "existential contraption". A value judgment that I have come to embody over the course of my own lived life.

[Arminius]

Homosexuality is also a taboo within Christianity as expressed in Sodom and Gomorrah.

The legend of "Sodom and Gomarrah" is expressed in the Old Testament, thus a taboo within the Jewish religion.

[Snark]

P1: God must be a divine being.
P2: Anything less than a divine being is not God.

Humans are unable to "entirely" conceive of the divine.
Therefore: anything of which a human may conceive is necessarily less than divine.
Therefore: anything of which a human may conceive is not God.

If God may not be conceived by a human, then humans are unable to conceive of God.
Therefore anything conceived by a human "as God" is not "God".

QED: God does not exist to humans.

Interesting post, but the "QED" doesn't follow. It is true that anything conceived by a human as God is not God (few theists would disagree), but following that with "God does not exist to humans" is a failure to understand religion's object of worship. (Note: the word "object" is not used to designate an object or entity of any kind, but something much more, something beyond any such designation.)

[Meno_]

Kant did not say god is an impossibility, Arminius , my friend,
because he did not rule out the a-priori synthetic which Marxists did rule out. For them an a- posterior synthetic was the only acceptable basis , and as such made anything else immaterial.

Hope You are doing fine, always carefully reading Your worthwhile and valuable comments.

[Prismatic567]

Ontology of 'Existence'.
Note Kant prove 'ontology' is not a possibility.
In addition Kant also demonstrated 'existence' is not a predicate.
Existence has to be accompanied by a qualification, i.e. exist as what?
e.g. God exists asserts nothing of substance at all.
It is that "what" that need to be justified within an empirical-rational reality.

What does it mean empirically to prove that "ontology"/ontology is not a possibility? How on earth would Kant go about demonstrating what that means beyond asking others to accept the definition and the meaning that he gave to the words in his argument/analysis itself?

How, in this respect, is Kant really any different from the rest of us here?

It is argued by some that God exists as the Creator --- the entity [first cause] responsible for the existence of Existence.

Whatever that means. But that's the point. In a world of words it means whatever one wishes to assert that it does. As long as you are not actually obligated to produce this God substantively.

On the other hand, how do the atheists go about demonstrating that a God, the God is not the Creator...the ontological/teleological font upon which mere mortals can fall back when they are unable to demonstrate any of this.

From my frame of mind we are all in the same boat here. We all embody [from the cradle to the grave] that enormous gap between what we think we know about these things at any particular "here and know" juncture, and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that we do to others.

Kant had his chance, right?

Note I did not link ontology with the empirical at all. Ontology is beyond empirical possibility.
'Ontology' is restricted to pure reason, i.e. purely thoughts only.

It is advised to understand Kant thoroughly one need at least 3 years full time or 5 years part time reading and research on Kant's philosophy. I have done the above.
So it is not easy to explain in few sentences to you how Kant demonstrated 'ontology is an impossibility.
Here is a clue to my point;

Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a predicate.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... arguments/

As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate.

The idea of Ontology ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God.
I have proven the Ontological God is an impossibility.
Thus 'ontology' is as a philosophical idea is an impossibility, i.e. impossible to prove any ontological essence can be real within an empirical-rational reality.

how do the atheists go about demonstrating that a God, the God is not the Creator...

One has to prove God exists first before deciding whether God is the Creator of the Universe.

....the only ultimate basis a theist can claim God exists is via faith, very strong faith. How can you use the basis of faith as an irresistible force of intellectual contraption?

But the same can be said of the atheist's argument regarding [among other things] the impossibility of God's existence. Beyond arguing that it seems more reasonable for those who claim the existence of something to demonstrate that this is so, the atheist is still left with no solid, irrefutable empirical evidence that a God, the God does not exist.

All I am noting here is that, either way, one or the other frame of mind may well be correct. It has just not been so demonstrated to me. In other words, to my very own entirely individual and unique existential "I".

And that is what the objectivists are most wary of in my opinion. That this is also applicable to them.

But I will always be the first here to flat out admit that I may well be wrong.

But, right or wrong, how would one actually go about demonstrating it?

You claim that you have...

You are entangled with too much conflation here.

Theists claim their God is real to the extent of being empirically-rationally real, e.g. listening to their prayers and answering them. On this basis, theists must prove their God is real via an empirical-rational basis. But theists cannot do that except by FAITH which is not empirically based.

OTOH. my argument 'God is an impossibility' is based purely on reason and logic, i.e. thoughts only and not empirical at all.
Since my argument is merely by thoughts, reason and logic alone, there is no need for me to bring empirical evidence at all.
When I have proven 'God is an impossibility' it meant the question of God is a non-starter, i.e. the question of whether God exists or not need not have to raise at all. It is like there is no basis to try to prove whether a Round-square exists or not.

Since God is an Impossibility, there is no question of whether God exists or not.

Where theists are inclined to believe God exists as real, they are doing it based on pure faith, i.e. beliefs based not on empirical-rational justifications.

IF one insists God is real, then they need to bring the empirical evidence and justifications.

The only justified basis for 'God exists' is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.

And, sure, to the extent that you embrace this "general description" as proof, it is proof. To you.

To me however it in no way compellingly demonstrates how in the staggering vastness of "all there is" you have proven that God is an impossibility. After all, how "on earth" could any mere mortal possibly know something like this?!

From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is no less a psychological contraption. Unless of course you are able to convince me that it is essentially true. Yet even than that wouldn't necessarily make it so.

We are all stuck in the same boat here: Grappling to connect the dots between an infinitesimal speck of existence -- "I" -- and the mind-boggling extent of Existence itself.

Again, I largely share your own assumptions about God but...

I have proven with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility. If one insist otherwise, bring the empirical evidence to justify it empirically-rationally.

The only justification for God to "exists" is purely psychological, here is my point again,

The only justified basis for 'God exists' is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.

nb: Will deal with the other points in another post.

[Prismatic567]

But that would require closing the gap between "I" as a psychological contraption and an understanding of human psychology in the context of "all there is".

What interest me most about Buddhism [and other Eastern narratives] is really no different from what interest me most about Christianity [and other Western narratives]: how to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and what we imagine our fate to be on the other side of the grave. As that relates to whatever we conclude when confronted with the question, "how ought one to live?"

In particular when one has come to believe that mere mortals inhabit an essentially absurd and meaningless world that seems to culminate in oblivion for all of eternity.

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above in regard to a particular existential context in which value judgments come into conflict. Including the judgment that revolves around establishing what value judgments are and how we come to acquire them historically, culturally and experientially.

[note: if anyone knows of any other folks who do embrace one or another "Eastern philosophy", by all means, bring them into the discussion. Either on this thread or on my own: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929 ]

The Eastern spiritualities and philosophies has gone into great depths on this issue since thousands of years ago and had continuously improve on them to the present.
The first thing is one need to understand the natural inclination to the idea "I" and "All there is" are ultimately illusory. Note Kant's there is no "I-in-itself" "Universe-in-itself" which the same with the non-theistic principles of Buddhism and the likes.

It is when one clings [naturally driven] to the "I" and "All there is" or "whatever there is" that a terrible angst is generated that drive one's to seek psychological security and the easy solution is the idea of a God [the all powerful] as a panacea.

The question is how to deal with this angst without clinging to anything. This is how Buddhism came up with the concept of 'nothingness' 'emptiness' 'dependent origination' where there is no dualistic reality but rather the focus is on emergence of reality with the self [as non-self] in engagement with the flow.

Eastern philosophies often come up with seemingly parodoxical ideas, e.g.
'Action without Action'
'Fighting without fighting'
They are not contradictions but they have to be viewed in different senses alternating within different time in nano-seconds.

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above ..

Besides theories based on real collective experiences, Buddhism and the likes focus critically to change the brain and mind via effective spiritual practices. The effectiveness of such practices is evident from the tons of research done on this subject.

The limitation is whilst these Eastern practices has benefits the more effective ones are limited to a small percentage of practitioners. So the solution is to make these philosophies and practices more accessible and practical for the masses without the religious attachments. I am optimistic this can be done with the potential of the exponential expansion of knowledge and information technology.

[Prismatic567]

Kant did not say god is an impossibility, Arminius , my friend,
because he did not rule out the a-priori synthetic which Marxists did rule out. For them an a- posterior synthetic was the only acceptable basis , and as such made anything else immaterial.

Hope You are doing fine, always carefully reading Your worthwhile and valuable comments.

Kant did not rule out the a-priori synthetic but he differentiated whether the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the following;

1. Empirical embedded and possible
2. Non-empirical groundings

Where the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the emprical, e.g. Science or Mathematics, then it is an empirical possibility.

Where the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the non-emprical, then it is an illusion.
An illusion is an impossibility to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
The idea of a God is a-priori synthetic based on pure thoughts and reason, which is non-empirical, thus an illusion, therefore God is an impossibility.

With reference to the idea of God as an inevitable illusion, Kant wrote;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

[Meno_]

Prismatic, Your Kant quote did not differentiate between thw different types of a priori synthetic therefore it's not a defense
to the argument , he simply states that. A non empirical conclusion is illusionary. That does not include thw pure categories of understanding . There are no different a priori types , only ones which are a priori and not a posteriori. A posterior types of propositions are derived from experience , a priori judgements are not.

He never said a priori jusgements are objective. He only said that assigning objectivity to non experiential , or a posterior. Judgements are illusionary. That is a different type of judgement, however I can see how his terminology in that quote may lead to a confusion

[Arminius]

Kant did not say god is an impossibility, Arminius , my friend,
because he did not rule out the a-priori synthetic which Marxists did rule out. For them an a- posterior synthetic was the only acceptable basis , and as such made anything else immaterial.

Hope You are doing fine, always carefully reading Your worthwhile and valuable comments.

Thank you.

[Arminius]

Prismatic 567.

Again:

You have proven nothing.

What you are doing is nothing else than advertising destruction, thus nihilism.

[Snark]

Considering all the talk about Kant and his philosophy, it would be easy for a casual observer to erroneously conclude that he was an atheist. He was not.

[Arminius]

Prismatic, Your Kant quote did not differentiate between thw different types of a priori synthetic therefore it's not a defense
to the argument , he simply states that. A non empirical conclusion is illusionary. That does not include thw pure categories of understanding . There are no different a priori types , only ones which are a priori and not a posteriori. A posterior types of propositions are derived from experience , a priori judgements are not.

He never said a priori jusgements are objective. He only said that assigning objectivity to non experiential , or a posterior. Judgements are illusionary. That is a different type of judgement, however I can see how his terminology in that quote may lead to a confusion

Prismatic simply misuses Kant - for particular reasons.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic, Your Kant quote did not differentiate between thw different types of a priori synthetic therefore it's not a defense
to the argument , he simply states that. A non empirical conclusion is illusionary. That does not include thw pure categories of understanding . There are no different a priori types , only ones which are a priori and not a posteriori. A posterior types of propositions are derived from experience , a priori judgements are not.

He never said a priori jusgements are objective. He only said that assigning objectivity to non experiential , or a posterior. Judgements are illusionary. That is a different type of judgement, however I can see how his terminology in that quote may lead to a confusion

It is not easy to explain Kant in a few paragraphs and a few quotes.
You have to spent a reasonable amount of time to read and research Kant before you can understand [not necessary agree] Kant's philosophy.

Two of his relevant works on this point are;

1. The Critique of Pure Reason
2. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science

In the Prolegomena Kant highlighted 3 Main Transcendental Problems related to Synthetic a priori judgments, i.e.;

1.0 The main transcendental problem.
1.1 How is pure mathematics possible?
1.2 How is pure natural science possible?
1.3 How is metaphysics in general possible?

Kant accept there is no issue with the possibility of Pure Mathematics and Pure Natural Science because they are embedded with intuition and a priori empirical elements that are linked to the empirical.

However, Is metaphysics to be possible? Kant do not accept it is possible within an empirical-rational reality because it contain no empirical-based elements, note the quote re B297 above.
However, Kant accept metaphysics can be 'possible' within pure thoughts and morality and this has to be confined within the bounds of Pure Reason only.

[Prismatic567]

At present where did all the Nations get the rules and agree to ban all slavery when slavery is not absolutely banned by God in the holy books?

Marx would argue that slavery was impaled on capitalism. Historically, organically, the market political economy prefers the "wage slave". The labor of the working class is exploited but when you don't "own" folks, they are on their own for everything else. But, sure, it can be argued the other way around: that out of the Enlightenment came political ideals. And that out of these ideals came such beliefs as the "natural rights of man". White men then, and then later men of color. And then women.

But slavery still exists in the world today: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/world/glo ... index.html

And there are any number of folks no doubt who could rationalize it again if economic conditions made it profitable.

My point is that sans God it is still largely an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That there does not appear to be a way in which to establish philosophically [logically/ethically] that slavery is necessarily/inherently wrong.

After all, sociopaths and nihilists are able to justify any and all human interactions that they construe to be in their own best interests.

Only a God is able to embody both the omniscience and the omnipotence that renders such things as slavery sins. With sins there is never any question of not getting caught, of not being punished. That's why the Gods are invented in the first place!!

In my view, you still cling to the illusion [if it is an illusion] that moral "progress" can be defined and then established essentially by mere mortals in a Godless universe. I, on the other hand, as a moral nihilist, construe these things more as existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And that is precisely why I ask folks [religious or not] to bring their own moral agendas "down to earth"; "out into the world" of actual human social, political and economic conflicts; conflicts we can probe and discuss given the differing sets of assumptions we bring into play here.

Thus you bring one set of assumptions regarding slavery above and I bring another. Now how would philosophers/epistemologists/logicians/ethicists/scientists/theologians/naturalists etc., go about establishing the most or the only rational assessment.

My point is DNA wise all humans has an inherent drive towards the continual improvement of morality.
The laws re banning of slavery by all recognized Nations is evidence to prove this trend of continual improvement in morality within humanity.

Obviously despite the laws on slavery by every Nation on Earth, there will always be people who will attempt to practice slavery illegally.
It is the same, despite Law of murder, there will still be murders going on.

The fact there are now Laws banning slavery as compared to 100 or 200, >1000 years ago is a reflection of improvement of Morality in action. Note Laws do not equate directly with Morality but they merely reflect the improving state of morality within humanity.

What will really denote real progress in Morality is when every human individual engages and aligns with his/her natural improving moral drive and naturally has the moral attitude that slavery is morally wrong. In this case we do have to rely on Laws but merely on the personal moral conscience of the individual.
At present such a state is seemingly an ideal, but it is possible for humanity to achieve such a state as done in instituting laws to ban slavery. This can be done more efficiently based on dynamic non-thestic approaches. Theistic base morals are immutable and too rigid to move with changing times.

Can the banning of slavery be a moral absolute?
I don't agree with the absolutely-absolute, but human can rely on reason & rationality, philosophy & wisdom based on core human principles to derive the best pragmatic moral absolutes. Note for example the Golden Rule which is very rational and Confucius [551 BC – 479 BC] came out with it before any "God" [illusory] stated in the New Testament.
Slavery is argued based on the principle of basic human dignity where no human shall be owned by another.

In general, the practice of Morality and Ethics will be most efficient when managed objectively [not Thinkdr's proposals of quantifying human values] within a Framework and Systems of Morality & Ethics. Humanity need to strive toward such an objective.

You will note my proof of 'God is an Impossibility' intends to link to the terrible terrors, violence and the full range of evils committed by evil prone believers who are inspired by the evil laden elements in the immutable holy books of theists who believe their God is real with the strongest possibility.

Now my proof 'God is an Impossibility' will cut off the grounds of theism and thus no more grounds for theists to commit the terrible evils.

And yet there have been any number of secular narratives -- ideologies, political dogmas, isms etc. -- that have inflicted just as much human pain and suffering over the course of human history. The 20th century in particular.

For me [God or No God], human interactions will always revolve around one or another combination of 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

From my frame of mind, the worst of all possible worlds is reflected in the first two. But I also clearly recognize that "here and now" this is no less an "existential contraption". A value judgment that I have come to embody over the course of my own lived life.

It seem to be a very common response, whenever I mentioned 'theistic religion and evil', then someone will definitely question "what about" secular "isms," political evil, Nazism, Stalin, etc.

All evils must be addressed and resolved.
I have a separate project to deal with evil in general encompassing ALL evils.
The gold standard of Problem Solving is to break down the whole problem into smaller manageable units.
Since this section is 'Religion and Spirituality' to topic I have to confine to religious related evils and not secular-based evils, e.g. politics, drugs, social, gangs, guns, etc.

In the past and even now, "might is right" but I believe the inherent drive towards incremental and greater morality will prevail based on its evident trend of improvements over the last 200 years in terms of a range of human values.

[Snark]

My point is DNA wise all humans has an inherent drive towards the continual improvement of morality.

Does that mean you are in favor of eugenics?

The laws re banning of slavery by all recognized Nations is evidence to prove this trend of continual improvement in morality within humanity.

Yes, and the banning of slavery was, directly or indirectly, pushed ahead by religion-based values.

In general, the practice of Morality and Ethics will be most efficient when managed objectively...

Here's where the problem of evil raises its ugly head for non-theists: there's no such thing as objective morals and ethics where there is no supreme Good.

The gold standard of Problem Solving is to break down the whole problem into smaller manageable units.

Isn't that reductionism? Was Einstein wrong to say, "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them"?

It seem to be a very common response, whenever I mentioned 'theistic religion and evil', then someone will definitely question "what about" secular "isms," political evil, Nazism, Stalin, etc.

Yes, and it is equally as common to see it dismissed.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes, and the banning of slavery was, directly or indirectly, pushed ahead by religion-based values.

I shouldn't say so as all religion is and permits slavery

Ithere's no such thing as objective morals and ethics where there is no supreme Good.

the opposite
supreme standard are the root of all evil = moral looseness before oneself

cause well hey we aint perfect right?


slippery trappery. lke chess against autist.

The gold standard of Problem Solving is to break down the whole problem into smaller manageable units.

Isn't that reductionism? Was Einstein wrong to say, "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them"?

He was being coquettish

It seem to be a very common response, whenever I mentioned 'theistic religion and evil', then someone will definitely question "what about" secular "isms," political evil, Nazism, Stalin, etc.

Yes, and it is equally as common to see it dismissed.

Trump accomplished reality in politics. Some do that most suck ad sucking inside politics is bad news.

[Prismatic567]

My point is DNA wise all humans has an inherent drive towards the continual improvement of morality.

Does that mean you are in favor of eugenics?

Eugenics is generally related to superiority in terms of overall physical, mental and health.
Point is a person who is deficient in overall physical, mental and health can still have very high moral intelligence and qualities.
So my proposals re continual improvement of morality is not related to eugenics per se.

The laws re banning of slavery by all recognized Nations is evidence to prove this trend of continual improvement in morality within humanity.

Yes, and the banning of slavery was, directly or indirectly, pushed ahead by religion-based values.

Note Fixed Cross' point on this.
The holy texts of condoning of slavery as in the Quran is immutable. There is no way, Muslims as believers can go against Allah's word to ban slavery. If they do, they will go to Hell.

In general, the practice of Morality and Ethics will be most efficient when managed objectively...

Here's where the problem of evil raises its ugly head for non-theists: there's no such thing as objective morals and ethics where there is no supreme Good.

There is no such thing as absolute objective moral rules floating out there to be enforced upon humans. But there are pragmatic absolutes which are objective.
I have argued 'objectivity' is based on intersubjective consensus.
viewtopic.php?p=2686574#p2686574
The golden rule with the consensus of 'all' humans is objective.
The banning of slavery as a law is objective.
There is no need for supreme Good, presumably for you is the Supreme God.
What is the point of proposing a Supreme God [illusory and impossible] that is supposed to be supreme Good which condone slavery and inspire all sorts of evil in a critical SOME theists.

The gold standard of Problem Solving is to break down the whole problem into smaller manageable units.

Isn't that reductionism? Was Einstein wrong to say, "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them"?

You are way off point on this.

It seem to be a very common response, whenever I mentioned 'theistic religion and evil', then someone will definitely question "what about" secular "isms," political evil, Nazism, Stalin, etc.

Yes, and it is equally as common to see it dismissed.

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.
But one is merely insulting one's intelligence when dismissing [wave off] another's hypothesis without proper arguments. The underlying reason for simply waving off another arguments is psychological in a subliminal detection of an existential threat.

[James S Saint]

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

[Snark]

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.

No, you won't. You like to cite psychology to support your position, but here's an article in Psychology Today that refutes your claim, calling it a "scapegoat for deeper psychological problems." The "new atheists" have already been thoroughly thrashed in regards to this claim. But I doubt you will accept that there is reason to dismiss your claim.

But one is merely insulting one's intelligence when dismissing [wave off] another's hypothesis without proper arguments.

But it's okay for you. That's quite a double standard you have there!

The underlying reason for simply waving off another arguments is psychological in a subliminal detection of an existential threat.

So, that's why you did it!

[Prismatic567]

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.

No, you won't. The "new atheists" have already been thoroughly thrashed in regards to this claim.

"New atheist" Where? Links?

I have done my own research into Islam [spent >3 years researching Quran and Islam] and found proofs that the Quran is inherently evil where Allah inspires Muslims to commit evil [as defined] on non-Muslims.

But one is merely insulting one's intelligence when dismissing [wave off] another's hypothesis without proper arguments.

But it's okay for you. That's quite a double standard you have there!

Where?

The underlying reason for simply waving off another arguments is psychological in a subliminal detection of an existential threat.

So, that's why you did it![/quote]Where?

[Prismatic567]

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

You are supporting my point? - God is ultimately an absolutely perfect God.