God is an Impossibility

[phyllo]

In other words, a God able to render "I" moot.

Maybe that which renders "I" moot is an aspect of God.

[iambiguous]

In other words, a God able to render "I" moot.

Maybe that which renders "I" moot is an aspect of God.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Then it's always back to distinguishing between what we think may be true "in our head", and that which we are able to demonstrate to others is in fact true.

Or, sure, just keep it all up in the scholastic clouds of "metaphysics": grappling with God "philosophically". Or keep it all confined to a world of words, a jostling over definitions and "arguments". Or let it be all about "personal experiences".

Meanwhile the clock keeps ticking in the general direction of oblivion. What's it to be then? Heaven? Hell? Salvation? Purgatory? Nothing at all?

And my argument is this: that when push comes to shove this is really [for all practical purposes] what God and religion are all about.

[phyllo]

Then it's always back to distinguishing between what we think may be true "in our head", and that which we are able to demonstrate to others is in fact true.

Not really. More importantly, what you think in your head is separated into what's reasonably likely and what's unlikely.

[Prismatic567]

That you are as poor of spirit as to worship the void in your heart, doesn't mean the universe is as empty as it makes you feel.

I don't worship the void [whatever that means] in my heart.
Where did I say the Universe is empty? I believe the Universe is empirically real.

What I believe is, reality is empty of an illusory God which is claimed to have created the Universe.

What I do is to live life in such a way towards optimizing my well-being and that include contributing to the resolution of all evils of the present and potentially in the future.
One part of the solution is to recognize and acknowledge the idea of God is an impossibility.

The impossible God is only an idea and ideal to cling on to resolve a terrible existential crisis but theism has its inevitable loads of evils [glaringly evident]. To deal with such theistic-related evils we must understand God is an impossibility [as argued] and revert back to its psychological beginning and resolve the problem from that root cause.

[Prismatic567]

Then it's always back to distinguishing between what we think may be true "in our head", and that which we are able to demonstrate to others is in fact true.

Not really. More importantly, what you think in your head is separated into what's reasonably likely and what's unlikely.

I would add, what is thought in one's head can be separated into,

1. Emprically existing
2. Empirically possible
3. Empirically impossible
4. Non-empirical and impossible - e.g. synthetic a priori judgment

An absolutely perfect God [imperative default as argued] is a transcendental illusion and non-empirical imposibility.

[phyllo]

1. Emprically existing
2. Empirically possible
3. Empirically impossible
4. Non-empirical and impossible - e.g. synthetic a priori judgment

Can be translated as :

"1. Emprically existing" = exists in reality

"2. Empirically possible" = does not exist but is logically possible

"3. Empirically impossible" = does not exist and is logically impossible

"4. Non-empirical and impossible - e.g. synthetic a priori judgment" = who knows what it means but seems to be essentially the same as #3 - does not exist and is logically impossible

[Meno_]

That you are as poor of spirit as to worship the void in your heart, doesn't mean the universe is as empty as it makes you feel.

I don't worship the void [whatever that means] in my heart.
Where did I say the Universe is empty? I believe the Universe is empirically real.

What I believe is, reality is empty of an illusory God which is claimed to have created the Universe.

What I do is to live life in such a way towards optimizing my well-being and that include contributing to the resolution of all evils of the present and potentially in the future.
One part of the solution is to recognize and acknowledge the idea of God is an impossibility.

The impossible God is only an idea and ideal to cling on to resolve a terrible existential crisis but theism has its inevitable loads of evils [glaringly evident]. To deal with such theistic-related evils we must understand God is an impossibility [as argued] and revert back to its psychological beginning and resolve the problem from that root cause.

Hi, I think he meant the void to mean Sunyata, the Buddhic concept.

[James S Saint]

1. Emprically existing
2. Empirically possible
3. Empirically impossible
4. Non-empirical and impossible - e.g. synthetic a priori judgment

Can be translated as :

"1. Emprically existing" = exists in reality

"2. Empirically possible" = does not exist but is logically possible

"3. Empirically impossible" = does not exist and is logically impossible

"4. Non-empirical and impossible - e.g. synthetic a priori judgment" = who knows what it means but seems to be essentially the same as #3 - does not exist and is logically impossible

1. Empirically existing = observable.
2. Empirically possible = might be observable for all we know.
3. Empirically impossible = certainly never observable.
4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (contradictory).

[Prismatic567]

Hi, I think he meant the void to mean Sunyata, the Buddhic concept.

Nah, definitely not referring the the VOID re Sunyata, Nothingness, Emptiness. This require an effective philosophy to comprehend.
I agree with the concepts of the VOID re Sunyata, Nothingness, Emptiness but not in a reified mode.

[Prismatic567]

1. Empirically existing = observable.
2. Empirically possible = might be observable for all we know.
3. Empirically impossible = certainly never observable.
4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (contradictory).

"4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (contradictory)".

There are a few items to (4);

i. never observable, can never be empirically tested and logically impossible (contradictory), e.g. squared-circle.

ii. never observable, can never be empirically tested and pseudo-logically possible but in thoughts only, e.g. thing-in-itself, an absolute perfect God.

[James S Saint]

1. Empirically existing = observable.
2. Empirically possible = might be observable for all we know.
3. Empirically impossible = certainly never observable.
4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (contradictory).

"4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (contradictory)".

There are a few items to (4);

i. never observable, can never be empirically tested and logically impossible (contradictory), e.g. squared-circle.

ii. never observable, can never be empirically tested and pseudo-logically possible but in thoughts only, e.g. thing-in-itself, an absolute perfect God.

Desperately inventing nonsense phraseology again.

"never observable" means "can never be empirically tested".

"pseudo-logically" is supposed to mean what?

[iambiguous]

Then it's always back to distinguishing between what we think may be true "in our head", and that which we are able to demonstrate to others is in fact true.

Not really. More importantly, what you think in your head is separated into what's reasonably likely and what's unlikely.

Not really?

Someone thinks that what she believes in her head about God is "reasonably likely"; and that, if you don't share her own frame of mind, then what you think about God is "reasonably unlikely"?

Then what?

How are we not back to the extent to which one or another combination of definitions, analyses, arguments and accumulations of actual, factual empirical, material, phenomenal evidence finally resolves which frame of mind is more "reasonably likely". Or even the most reasonable of all.

Or that neither are reasonable. Let alone the most reasonable.

If it doesn't all revolve around distinguishing what we think is true about one or another God and what we can demonstrate is in fact true for all rational men and women, doesn't it all come down to the sort of communication indicative of faith --- in Sunday School, around the dinner table, between family and friends?

[James S Saint]

Just a quick side note:

Why are you so concerned with "what is true for all men and women"?

There are a great many low intelligence and/or insane people who cannot recognize hardly anything as true. They certainly can't be cognitively satisfied, only emotionally (if at all).

[phyllo]

There are a great many low intelligence and/or insane people who cannot recognize hardly anything as true. They certainly can't be cognitively satisfied, only emotionally (if at all).

Sure, you can't demonstrate things to fools, but more than that, you can't demonstrate some things to normal, rational people. If you try to demonstrate calculus, a good many people who don't have training in mathematics will not understand it.

Heck, I can't even demonstrate that a grey cat ran in front of my car today. Trivially simple fact, but I have no photographs or video, so no way to demonstrate it to rational or irrational men and women. I could fabricate a demonstration for the irrational ones.

And furthermore, what is a demonstration without a standard for evaluating thoughts? What is a rational man or woman without such a standard?

The village idiot can say that something is (or is not) an adequate demonstration ... how can Iambig argue with him or contradict him? Iambig is not even in a position to say that the village idiot is not a rational man.

He has tossed everything in the garbage bin and now he has a dilemma. What a surprise.

[Prismatic567]

Desperately inventing nonsense phraseology again.

"never observable" means "can never be empirically tested".

"pseudo-logically" is supposed to mean what?

You are accusing others of 'nonsense' because you are philosophically ignorant in this case.

Most of my philosophical thesis and views are borrowed and paraphrased from "shoulders of philosophical giants." In the case, it is Kant:

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.
These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. -A339, B397

In the above Kant is referring to pseudo-Rational non-empirical illusory things arising from "reason" i.e. primal crude pure reason, thus his Critique of Pure Reason.

[James S Saint]

Obviously you fail to understand the difference between "logical", "rational", and "reason".

There can be pseudo-rationality.
There can be pseudo-reasoning.
There is no such thing a "pseudo-logic" other than meant as "partially logical" or "fake/fallacious logic".

Since you meant pseudo-rational, I suspect that you should stick with it. But neither is suited to your (4).

[Prismatic567]

Obviously you fail to understand the difference between "logical", "rational", and "reason".

There can be pseudo-rationality.
There can be pseudo-reasoning.
There is no such thing a "pseudo-logic" other than meant as "partially logical" or "fake/fallacious logic".

Since you meant pseudo-rational, I suspect that you should stick with it. But neither is suited to your (4).

Where did I state "pseudo-logic"? You are inventing a straw man!

I stated,

"ii. never observable, can never be empirically tested and pseudo-logically possible but in thoughts only, e.g. thing-in-itself, an absolute perfect God."

Note it is "pseudo-logically possible" the subject is 'possible' and it is pseudo-logically possible.
As Kant had stated, there are syllogism [per proper logic principles] that contain no empirical element but yet claimed with objective Reality, this is what is the pseudo outcome about the whole process.

[phyllo]

Where did I state "pseudo-logic"? You are inventing a straw man!

I stated,

"ii. never observable, can never be empirically tested and pseudo-logically possible but in thoughts only, e.g. thing-in-itself, an absolute perfect God."


Note it is "pseudo-logically possible" the subject is 'possible' and it is pseudo-logically possible.

You can't avoid the logical implications just by changing a noun into an adverb or adjective.

[Meno_]

Agreed. God is an individually based intuitive exposition per a dark night of the soul type experience.

It is very rare that God will manifest to even a worthy individual..


It is a.communicative=communal experience exceeding a rational, cognitive experience. But it refers to the impossibility or reducing it to the primal experiences.

The community of souls arise by virtue of communication of individual sources of experienced with enlightenment.

[The Eternal Warrior]

I agree in terms that God is really impossible to put up with.

[iambiguous]

Just a quick side note:

Why are you so concerned with "what is true for all men and women"?

There are a great many low intelligence and/or insane people who cannot recognize hardly anything as true. They certainly can't be cognitively satisfied, only emotionally (if at all).

Actually, it is more along the lines of "what is true for all rational men and women".

After all, what else is there for measuring the gap between what we think is true, believe is true and/or claim to know is true about God, and that which can, in fact, be demonstrated to be true for all of us.

Reason. The tool of both philosophers and scientists. Then, as I noted above, a rational understanding of God/No God will revolve around defending one or another "combination of definitions, analyses, arguments and accumulations of actual, factual empirical, material, phenomenal evidence".

On the other hand, to me, folks like you seem considerably more content with being "cognitively satisfied" that what they have constructed "intellectually" about God in their head is quite enough. Emotion need not enter into it at all.

As though the invention of God does not revolve fundamentally around a fear of death/oblivion. Or around the trepidation that many feel in contemplating a world in which an omniscient/omnipotent transcending font is not around to establish and to confirm good from bad behavior. Vice from virtue. Sinners from saints.

And then to judge those behaviors so as to establish one's fate for all of eternity.

Or around the agony of contemplating an existence that is essentially meaningless and absurd.

For mere mortals, religion in a nutshell.

Do you honestly imagine there are many men and women around who grapple with all of this only in order to feel "cognitively satisfied"?

[iambiguous]

The village idiot can say that something is (or is not) an adequate demonstration ... how can Iambig argue with him or contradict him? Iambig is not even in a position to say that the village idiot is not a rational man.

Clearly, if an "idiot" lacks the cognitive capacity to make a proper distinction between an adequate demonstration of something that can in fact be shown to be true for all of us, and one that cannot, then that is in fact the case.

This can be demonstrated.

Instead, my point revolves more around those interactions in which a rational mind is able to demonstrate [re mathematics, the laws of physics, empirical facts, logical rules of language etc., in the either/or world] that something is true to other rational people, and those interactions [re moral and political narratives in the is/ought world] in which "truth" is more likely to be one or another "existential contraption" rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

The village idiot can argue [and then try to demonstrate] that an abortion involves extracting the unborn baby through the nostrils, but how would one be construed as an idiot when the argument shifts to the morality of abortion?

How, in the absence of God, can rationality and virtue be established by mere mortals?

He has tossed everything in the garbage bin and now he has a dilemma. What a surprise.

That you want to believe this I don't doubt. But I do not toss everything into the garbage bin. I make that distinction between what is able to be demonstrated as true for all of us in the either/or world and what is entirely more problematic in the is/ought world.

And I still suspect that you believe of me what you do because on some cognitive level you recognize what is at stake if I ever do manage to yank you down into my dilemma before you manage to yank me up out of it instead.

[James S Saint]

Just a quick side note:

Why are you so concerned with "what is true for all men and women"?

There are a great many low intelligence and/or insane people who cannot recognize hardly anything as true. They certainly can't be cognitively satisfied, only emotionally (if at all).

Actually, it is more along the lines of "what is true for all rational men and women".

What do you mean by "rational men and women"?
..or would that make it "only true in your mind"?

[iambiguous]

Actually, it is more along the lines of "what is true for all rational men and women".

What do you mean by "rational men and women"?
..or would that make it "only true in your mind"?

Again, James, the distinction I make is one between demonstrating that it is reasonable/rational to believe that you and I are engaged in this exchange here and now at ILP, and demonstrating that it is reasonable/rational to believe that your arguments about God in this exchange are more reasonable/rational than my own.

In turn, acknowledging such things as the extent to which it can be demonstrated that the exchange is not just a solipsistic contraption, is not only as it ever could have been in a wholly determined universe, or that it is not but one infinitesimally insignificant aspect of one or another sim world or one or another "demonic" dream.

I think that I think, therefore I think that I think that I am?

[phyllo]

And I still suspect that you believe of me what you do because on some cognitive level you recognize what is at stake if I ever do manage to yank you down into my dilemma before you manage to yank me up out of it instead.

You're like a guy telling me to drive with my eyes closed. It's not going to happen. For obvious reasons.