ILovePhilosophy.com

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:13 am**

iambiguous wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
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.

No, I asked you what you mean by "rational men and women". The ability to demonstrate that you are rational, is not an answer.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:32 am**

phyllo wrote:
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.

Note to others:

You tell me what you think this means --- as it relates to the points I raised with him above. Sure, maybe I keep missing an important point here.

My own point revolves around the assumption that, however highly skilled you are cognitively in discussing the possibility that a God, the God, my God exists, that's not nearly the same as demonstrating empirically that this is something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe. Why? Because it has been shown that in fact He does exist.

And whether He does or does not, it does not appear [to me] to have much to do with telling someone to drive with their eyes closed.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:55 am**

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
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.

No, I asked you what you mean by "rational men and women". The ability to demonstrate that you are rational, is not an answer.

Again: Note to others:

Is this a profoundly significant distinction that he is making with regard to the example I noted above?

Or, instead, this but one more example of James trying to yank the discussion up into the epistemological stratosphere of "definitions" and "meaning".

In other words...

Is it or is it not rational to state that this exchange is in fact unfolding at ILP? Can or cannot reasonable people demonstrate it?

And is establishing this on par with establishing/demonstrating which of us is being more rational in our assessment of God's actual existence?

For me what it means to be a rational man or woman revolves around demonstrating to others that, however you define the meaning of the words you use, they are in sync with what can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.

Again, sans solipsism, determinism, sim worlds and/or Descartes evil demons.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:35 am**

For me what it means to be a rational man or woman revolves around demonstrating to others that, however you define the meaning of the words you use, they are in sync with what can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.

Are rational people really going to spend huge amounts of time demonstrating this kind of stuff??

Who does this?

It doesn't sound very rational.

As a workable definition of rationality, it seems to miss the mark.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:54 am**

Lots of rational people are unable to demonstrate things. Lots of irrational people are able to use tricks to demonstrate all sorts of nonsense.

How to evaluate these types of people?

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:55 am**

iambiguous wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
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.

No, I asked you what you mean by "rational men and women". The ability to demonstrate that you are rational, is not an answer.

Again: Note to others:

Is this a profoundly significant distinction that he is making with regard to the example I noted above?

Or, instead, this but one more example of James trying to yank the discussion up into the epistemological stratosphere of "definitions" and "meaning".

I asked of you a very simple question. It isn't ME who is trying to divert into nonsensical BS. I asked you what YOU mean when you say a particular word, "rational men and women".

What is wrong with you such that you can't figure out even what you meant yourself and thus have to try to shift blame onto me?

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:56 pm**

Let's say Person A uses equivocation to demonstrate Something A. And Person B cannot demonstrate an alternative Something B.

Is Person A rational and Person B not rational?

Is Something A the rational belief?

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:44 pm**

iambiguous wrote:For me what it means to be a rational man or woman revolves around demonstrating to others that, however you define the meaning of the words you use, they are in sync with what can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.

There is nothing at all that can be demonstrated to "all of us". And most things that you believe have never been demonstrated to you.

The religion of "I only believe it if I see it" has no true worshipers.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:22 pm**

phyllo wrote:
For me what it means to be a rational man or woman revolves around demonstrating to others that, however you define the meaning of the words you use, they are in sync with what can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.
Are rational people really going to spend huge amounts of time demonstrating this kind of stuff??

Who does this?

It doesn't sound very rational.

On this post, the discussion revolves around the argument that "God is an impossibility".

So, is this a rational thing to argue?

How would you define the meaning of "rational" here if someone were to ask you, "is it rational to believe this"?

Me, I make the distinction between that which seems able to be established as a true, rational statement -- that this thread and this exchange does in fact exist here and now at ILP.

As opposed to those who argue that in fact God is an impossibility; or those who argue that not only is God, in fact, a possibility, but that their God is the one and only existing God.

Then I'm back again to this:

My own point revolves around the assumption that, however highly skilled you are cognitively in discussing the possibility that a God, the God, my God exists, that's not nearly the same as demonstrating empirically that this is something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe. Why? Because it has been shown that in fact He does exist.

What's next then: Define empirical?

I mean, come on, after the definitions are said to establish the meaning of the words used in any argument about the existence of God, the actual existence of God Himself seems no less profoundly problematic.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:32 pm**

On this post, the discussion revolves around the argument that "God is an impossibility".

So, is this a rational thing to argue?

How would you define the meaning of "rational" here if someone were to ask you, "is it rational to believe this"?

You keep shifting around and bringing up irrelevant details - muddying the water.

You don't have a reasonable grasp of rationality. That invalidates all your arguments. It doesn't matter if we are talking about God or something else.

"all rational men and women" means nothing coming from you.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:39 pm**

James S Saint wrote:I asked of you a very simple question. It isn't ME who is trying to divert into nonsensical BS. I asked you what YOU mean when you say a particular word, "rational men and women".

What is wrong with you such that you can't figure out even what you meant yourself and thus have to try to shift blame onto me?

My response to you here is basically that same as my response to Phyllo:

On this post, the discussion revolves around the argument that "God is an impossibility".

So, is this a rational thing to argue?

How would you define the meaning of "rational" here if someone were to ask you, "is it rational to believe this"?

Me, I make the distinction between that which seems able to be established as a true, rational statement -- that this thread and this exchange does in fact exist here and now at ILP.

As opposed to those who argue that in fact God is an impossibility; or those who argue that not only is God, in fact, a possibility, but that their God is the one and only existing God.

Then I'm back again to this:

My own point revolves around the assumption that, however highly skilled you are cognitively in discussing the possibility that a God, the God, my God exists, that's not nearly the same as demonstrating empirically that this is something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe. Why? Because it has been shown that in fact He does exist.

What's next then: Define empirical?

I mean, come on, after the definitions are said to establish the meaning of the words used in any argument about the existence of God, the actual existence of God Himself seems no less profoundly problematic.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Note to others:

Again, I will admit that both Phyllo and James are making an important technical, epistemological point regarding what it means to or not to be "rational".

And I keep missing it.

Would someone please try to reconfigure what they are telling me here into an argument that might clear things up for me. And, in particular, as it relates to the question, "is it rational to believe that God is an impossibility?"

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:59 pm**

phyllo wrote:Let's say Person A uses equivocation to demonstrate Something A. And Person B cannot demonstrate an alternative Something B.

Is Person A rational and Person B not rational?

Is Something A the rational belief?

No, not "something". Some thing. This: the OP. The argument that God is an impossibility.

And the distinction that I keep making:

That while it would seem to be entirely rational to state [demonstrate] that the OP does in fact exist here at ILP, is it in turn entirely rational [demonstrable] to state that the argument itself has in fact demonstrated that the existence of God is an impossibility?

Otherwise we're just talking past each other.

But, hey, that's okay. After all, who knows, maybe some day I will finally succeed in yanking you down into the abyss that is oblivion in an essentially absurd and meaningless world; or you'll succeed in yanking me up out of my brutally grim narrative.

On the other hand, either way that does not necessarily establish the existence of a God, the God, your God.

You have your faith. And I suspect that comforts and consoles you.

And what I wouldn't give to have a little of that myself. After all, it once comforted and consoled me in a way that I can only look back on now wistfully.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:25 pm**

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:For me what it means to be a rational man or woman revolves around demonstrating to others that, however you define the meaning of the words you use, they are in sync with what can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.

There is nothing at all that can be demonstrated to "all of us". And most things that you believe have never been demonstrated to you.

Yes, that's true. But there are the laws of physics, mathematical calculations, the logical rules of language etc.. They are at our disposal and seem able to demonstrate any number of facts embedded in the either/or world that we live and interact with.

The fact of human interaction. The fact of human interaction that revolves around discussions/beliefs/behaviors related to the alleged existence of one or another of [so far] dozens and dozens of Gods.

And that's just on this planet.

And it's also true that I believe in the existence of many, many things -- computer technology for example -- that I would never be able to demonstrate to others why they function as they do.

But I'll bet others can.

But who can demonstrate the existence of even a single God? Such that their argument takes us to this God. In the flesh as it were.

James S Saint wrote: The religion of "I only believe it if I see it" has no true worshipers.

No, instead, the preponderance of religious folks fall somewhere between "I have faith in God" [more or less blind] and "I believe what I do about God in my head and that comforts and consoles me".

But few folks are quite like you, James. You have managed to construct this gigantic intellectual contraption "in your head" that, through "definitional logic" has resulted in this equally gigantic "theory of everything" that somehow "in your head" manages to intertwine definitional logic with RM/AO with the Real God with...what exactly?

In particular as it relates to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:37 pm**

It seems to me that there are or process two ways to look at , or, define the understanding of how rationality, or rational use of language relate.

That they do relate inscribe the whole content of the adventure of being able to pose the problem of interaction between assumptions and their verification.

No problem up to here

Here comes.the clincher: why does on over examination any resolution depends on the level of generalization with an aim toward the degree of focus.

GOD as a certainty was based on a reductive logos-logic, where everything was caused by another cause, determining man ,his values and his actions. He was outward looking and assumed a rationality with a creationist foundation

The proof was in the pudding, absolutely, there was no need to look elsewhere, or to propose a belief, that anthropomorphic visuality need or has a potential to any reversal. Man was formed out of the image of God. Reversability never occured, because there never had a reason for it.

The distinction between certain knowledge, and the actions of man messing up the equation never took hold because, man's soul , verified by the platonic sense , was reified up to the enlightenment. The logos was foolproof.

Then everything did not change overnight, but gradually eroded the basic assumptions. Not that the old assumptions were abandoned, but slowly created parallel patterns.

Even Kant held in to old assumptions and it is argued,.Nietzche as well. His nihilization was a tour the force, for public consumption based on how Nietzche understood how faith was on the wait. Privately, he saw the deeper meaning of proof, perhaps biased by his own father's religious occupation

Reason failed for.the masses because their belief was based on shallow ground.

That is why inversion of logic called for a different logical system, inductive reason

This was the crisis which still betakes arguments up to now.

Where reason prevails depends on how it's defined, says the positivist, or, how it interpreted say the reformed neo-Platonist, not realising their reasoning simply lost the absolute parallelism of their previous stance, and they don't see the divergence or convergence from a removed vanishing point, depending on the hold an imminent or transcendent terrain has blinded their reason.they simply reduce divergence by nullification, denial, or, sustaining the categorical error.

This type of reasoning can be seen today, as extended.to a lesser authority in the present day.epistemic crisis surrounded or surrounding the Trump era.

As an afterthought, I hope I did not commit the very, or similar logical error, of which I was chastised a way back
But a retraction at this point lessens my own interpretation of how this forum is shaping , up to now. Guessing,.just trying to hold my own here.

I'm not building an edifice but inverting the inversion by seeking a new definition of God

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:45 pm**

phyllo wrote:
On this post, the discussion revolves around the argument that "God is an impossibility".

So, is this a rational thing to argue?

How would you define the meaning of "rational" here if someone were to ask you, "is it rational to believe this"?
You keep shifting around and bringing up irrelevant details - muddying the water.

Huh? I'm just asking you to define the meaning "rational" if someone were to ask you whether the OP is a rational argument.

I'm asking you to dissolve the mud such that all of us might be more in sync in evaluating how reasonable or unreasonable the argument is.

In other words, what you call "muddying the waters" seems to revolve around my attempt to make a distinction between saying that it is rational to argue that the OP does in fact exist here at ILP, and saying that in fact the argument either is or is not rational pertaining to efforts to establish the existence of God.

phyllo wrote: You don't have a reasonable grasp of rationality. That invalidates all your arguments. It doesn't matter if we are talking about God or something else.

"all rational men and women" means nothing coming from you.

Alas, when you are reduced to this sort of "retort", my respect for your intelligence does take a dent or two. After all, making me the argument doesn't make my points go away.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:41 pm**

Huh? I'm just asking you to define the meaning "rational" if someone were to ask you whether the OP is a rational argument.

I'm asking you to dissolve the mud such that all of us might be more in sync in evaluating how reasonable or unreasonable the argument is.

I already presented what I see as the flaws/errors in Prismatic's syllogism.

I will recap briefly:

He insists that theists demand that God be perfect. - This seems clearly false.

He insists that there are different types of perfection. - This seems to be an arbitrary division.

He presents a logic argument which is not based on any observed evidence. - This means that the conclusion does not necessarily reflect reality. The stuff that Feynman said about physics theories applies to this argument.

You're a bright guy ... you can figure out what that suggests about the OP.

Alas, when you are reduced to this sort of "retort", my respect for your intelligence does take a dent or two. After all, making me the argument doesn't make my points go away.

We keep going round and round because you don't have a reasonable concept of rationality. If you did, then we could move forward and make some sort of progress.

I have always been willing to commit myself to a definition of rationality based on observed evidence, logic and proven methods of reasoning.

We could examine a particular scenario and discuss whether something valid evidence or whether a particular line of reasoning is correct.

Except you can't do that. You couldn't do it for the "teaching Boris" scenario and you certainly can't do in any thread where the word 'god' comes up.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:55 pm**

iambiguous wrote:But there are the laws of physics, mathematical calculations, the logical rules of language etc.. They are at our disposal and seem able to demonstrate any number of facts embedded in the either/or world that we live and interact with.

I see. So you worship physicists as your priests. And thus anyone agreeing with modern physics is a "rational man or woman".

iambiguous wrote:But few folks are quite like you, James. You have managed to construct this gigantic intellectual contraption "in your head" that, through "definitional logic" has resulted in this equally gigantic "theory of everything" that somehow "in your head" manages to intertwine definitional logic with RM/AO with the Real God with...what exactly?

... with Physics.

iambiguous wrote:In particular as it relates to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

... with Psychology.

You should think it interesting that neither modern physicists, psychologists, nor me have your special dilemma, yet they are your reference for being "rational".

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:27 am**

phyllo wrote:I already presented what I see as the flaws/errors in Prismatic's syllogism.

I will recap briefly:

He insists that theists demand that God be perfect. - This seems clearly false.

Straw man!
I did not insist theists demand that God be perfect.
I stated SOME theists insist their God is absolutely perfect [as differentiated from relative perfection]. In addition I argued those who do not qualify their god is absolutely perfect, are ignorant and given the knowledge they [ have no choice] will rationally opt for an absolutely perfect God.

He insists that there are different types of perfection. - This seems to be an arbitrary division.

There is obviously a difference between,

1. Subjective opinions of perfection - the perfect woman, beauty
2. Empirical related perfection - e.g. perfect circle
3. Absolute - perfection no greater can be conceived nor disputed

He presents a logic argument which is not based on any observed evidence. - This means that the conclusion does not necessarily reflect reality. The stuff that Feynman said about physics theories applies to this argument.

You are very lost here.

The argument for God which by default must be absolutely perfect is basically a non-empirical argument. Do you think theists can ever produce an empirical god for scientific testing?

What I have presented is a reasoned and rational argument to prove the falseness of a non-empirical claim. There is no need for evidence in this case because theists do not begin their claim with direct evidence.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:20 pm**

phyllo

God can't be a total mystery because if He was, then there would be no reason to think that He exists. IOW, a "total mystery" God would be a total fabrication of the imagination.

This may not be a fair analogy here. We know that a man has been murdered. This is all we know. The evidence is there before us lying on the floor. Everything else is a total mystery.
Isn't it possible to at least sense or intuit something of a First Cause through the Universe[s] or however someone would want to describe it without having any inkling whatsoever about it.
Does *total* mystery actually have to be completely ignorant of a God's existence?

There has to be some indication of God's existence in the universe. Sure, it can be a tiny "tip of the iceberg" but you can draw some conclusions from it.

But we can never know if those conclusions actually hit the mark, can we? Can we? We see with eyes which can only interpret things according to the brains which we have now.
We call this God He, father, all powerful, all knowing, et cetera.

Theists tend to be too enthusiastic about God and they give Him all sorts of amazing characteristics. One has to examine those characteristics and decide which ones are supported by evidence.

Which one of those to you would be the truest characteristics - supported by evidence?

One can say that God is very powerful, knows a great deal and wants humans to thrive. I would say that's the limit of what can be concluded from "looking around".

In light of what goes on in this word, how could anyone even say that?
What is it that shows you this Power of a God?

Yes, I am probably wrong.

Don't beat yourself up. There is no reason to do so.

Thank you but I actually was not beating myself up. I was reminding myself that I could be wrong. Better not to have said *probably*. Some would definitely hold that against me.

Pursue your inquiries with confidence but not arrogance.

I will not presume or assume here, but do you see me as arrogant? If so, within this thread where did you see it. An inquiring mind would like to know.
I had actually wondered if it would have been better much earlier on to name the characteristics which I saw as belonging to a God but I still like to hold to whatever it was which began all of this is still mystery. As to whether or not I can call it *total mystery* I am a bit more skeptical than I was before - but still...

Confidence makes you flexible and strong.

Which came first, Phyllo?

Arrogance makes you rigid and brittle.

Rigid, yes - brittle, I am not so sure of.
But R can build up insurmountable walls.
I am still learning how to be an agnostic and a skeptic.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:42 pm**

Iambiguous wrote,

Huh? I'm just asking you to define the meaning "rational" if someone were to ask you whether the OP is a rational argument.

Perhaps one could ALSO define rational as having the wherewithal to Show Just Cause for such an argument?

Considering the fact that there would at least appear to be a Universe lol - arguing for a God NOT being a possibility would seem to be irrational - at least to me.

Wouldn't the atheist at the very least first have to define what he/she means by God and what others mean by God?
Hmmm... :-k

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:22 pm**

Isn't it possible to at least sense or intuit something of a First Cause through the Universe[s] or however someone would want to describe it without having any inkling whatsoever about it.
Does *total* mystery actually have to be completely ignorant of a God's existence?

Well, you have some idea about that first cause because it caused the universe and you know something about the universe.

But we can never know if those conclusions actually hit the mark, can we?

You can say that about anything. Does any of our knowledge actually hit the mark? One assumes that it does. One would have to have a god's-eye-view to actually know. And we don't have that.

In light of what goes on in this word, how could anyone even say that?
What is it that shows you this Power of a God?

Humans are not thriving? Why is the population at 7 billion?

It takes some power to create the universe.

Thank you but I actually was not beating myself up. I was reminding myself that I could be wrong.

Anybody can be wrong in anything posted. It hardly needs to be written out.

I will not presume or assume here, but do you see me as arrogant?

I wasn't referring to you. ILP is full of arrogant posters. Best not to become like them.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:20 am**

Arcturus Descending wrote:Wouldn't the atheist at the very least first have to define what he/she means by God and what others mean by God?
Hmmm...

God in this case is ultimately the ontological God, i.e.
a being than which no greater can be 'conceived' - St. Anselm.
For any quality attributed to any god, the ontological god is always greater.

I have stated the natural evolving trend is towards an ontological God, improving from polytheism and animism. This is why the majority of theists [>5 billion] at present believe in a monotheistic ontological god.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:09 am**

I think Arc has a point. An upward progress toward monotheism REFLECTS a simultaneous regress into its own foundation, satisfying its own contradiction.

It is trying to be a synthetic solution of that contradiction, Anselm may not have seen that coming, but he may have intuited it
That is within the remote possibility of reason. I said similar to that about 6 comments above. So inasmuch we may be talking about an ontogical deity, that ontology can work both ways, on basis of principles of universality. The question of.one God or many gods do have a primordiality, signifying opposing channels of thought, and that's been the case pretty much through modern history of ideas.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:40 am**

God ɡäd/
noun
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:16 pm**

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Wouldn't the atheist at the very least first have to define what he/she means by God and what others mean by God?
Hmmm...
God in this case is ultimately the ontological God, i.e.
a being than which no greater can be 'conceived' - St. Anselm.
For any quality attributed to any god, the ontological god is always greater.

I have stated the natural evolving trend is towards an ontological God, improving from polytheism and animism. This is why the majority of theists [>5 billion] at present believe in a monotheistic ontological god.

But I would like to know the REAL one. ..not the greater one...but the one which is hidden.
Do you *see* THAT?

ILovePhilosophy.com

God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility

Re: God is an Impossibility