Phyllo,
In my book, there is only one ~~ that of total mystery.
The more characteristics we give to this god, the more imperfect it becomes since it is based on human assumption, projection and subjective thinking.
Yes, I am probably wrong.
Well here goes, understand no simple matter although they do say about the most complex , that found a mentally they are the most simple.
And Arc, here I am being rash and judge mental, but like a good marine, temper fidelis: As Always.
It starts with Narcissus with a small n, since at that point in his career, when he perceives his visage, he thinks it’s another person.
He falls in love with him, and doesent realize that reflection is mirror like, he thinks that the person is down below somewhere, below the surface of the pool of water, in an underworld of some sorts, and he doesent reflect on that much in both, the optical and cognitive sense.
So his thinking on the matter is not two fold, but he really cannot see himself. He knows not what he looks like, so in the sense of distinguishing himself from others is nil. He has no self awareness,no self consciousness,ergo no self.
What does he need to realize that it is himself he is seeing, knowing?
Or rather, what happens, between the time that he doesent , when he does get to know himself?
Is he setting the stage for a gradual Socratic quest?
Does he do it all by himself, without the use of a Deus ex Machina?
Or, is there an intermediary, a kind of nexus between a god, or a god idea, that comes to him, where suddenly he sees the light? Or, does he gradually learn to differentiate between himself and others like him?
In his physical evolution does a correlating capacity to distinguish surface from depth, the underlying objects which become evident upon reflection?
Re=flection, is implied in Sartre where he states flatly, that ‘The Other as a subject can’t help but treat Your Being as an Object. This is interesting from the point of view, that the 20 th century has brought about a reversal in thought regarding the subject and the object inasmuch, as the relation has come to a full circle, the perception of the other is no longer a given, it is relative to the consciousness of the other. It is no longer restricted to the idea that man has been positioned as the ruler of the jungle of beings beneath him, of those living in an underworld of beings more pertaining to the viewers above interpreting reflection as those above and below.
The man Narcissus sees from above to below, is one, who breaks up his apprension, he identifies with him, and longs for a return to his formidable but unformed terrain, it , he draws him, in a place where the centripetal forces of return appear to overwhelm the forces throwing him opposite, centrifugally, into where he is. There, he above, his reflection starts to bother him, for the underlying visage is so direct and personal, toward him as an existential referense looking exclusively at him, inordinately concerned about him and him alone, that the Other, seems reverentially tied to him and him alone.
He is absolutely concerned about Narcissus, and Narcissus absolutely identifies in that optical sense with him.
That identity, sustained, becomes the logical basis in his mind of the Absolute guarantor of identity. It’s in the look, a look Sartre does concern himself with in ‘Being and Nothingness’.
After Narcissus was punished by the godess out of jealousy, the complex erotic duplicity had incepted into the war of the sexes, based on multi form sets of rationale, idealization and progression.
The godess as an erotic medium, assured his continued being, by affecting his psyche to atone for his mistake, and as a consequence, he shifted his tenure toward less feminine more tolerant and wisdom filled Oedipal fracture, slicing off the feminine from the more authorative masculine identification. This was a basic shift, starting with the reflection moving from simple erotic, to more complex differentiating, authorship yearning basic representations.
The end result was a requirement to understand god as a Being , moving away from mere emotion filled, vanity inspired powers , toward more differentiated, less understood reflections, where the reflection became somehow both: a simultaneity of :visual and cognitive and participatory idea, whereby the platform was set to progress beyond mere participation mystique, in the words of Levy Strauss.
That this platform evolved slowly or suddenly spring out of the mind of a mythological creature, is irrelevant, because at this stage of human evolution, time as a transcendental idea was not understood, by way of experience. It was a timeless era, where the Idea for further evolution in reflection had to utilize, the mirroring ideas inherent in the fabric of the evolving consciousness.
It was immaterial therefore , at his point, to ask the question of the difference of believing in It, as a modus operans, as to the reality of the belief, vis. that is there a real god, or did he need to be invented, since it read as part and parcel of human development.
The anthropomorphic idea is a look backward through the annals of a very long time, therefore suspect in its presupposing idea.
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.
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.
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.
Characteristics like omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are inherently contradictory and fundamentally incomprehensible to humans.
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”.
Don’t beat yourself up. There is no reason to do so.
Pursue your inquiries with confidence but not arrogance. Confidence makes you flexible and strong. Arrogance makes you rigid and brittle.
And as we have told you before, “EVERY POINT” means that there cannot be ANY points that are NOT equidistant from the center. So you MAY NOT pick any less than EVERY point related to the shape.
I can’t grasp you points fully.
You used the example of ‘n’ and “N.” It this the small ‘self’ and the big “Self”
Many theistic philosophies trace from the small ‘self’ to the big ‘Self’ and identify the all-encompassing absolute “SELF” as God, e.g. Brahman, etc.
My point is, whatever the emerging idea of God, ultimately it has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God and as I have demonstrated, such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.
Being an impossibility meant it is moot and a non-starter and the question of God’s existence cannot [it is impossible] be raised in terms of reality.
The only valid reason and usefulness of ‘God exists’ is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.
What you’re doing is you are substituting one vague statement with another. You are substituting “every point must be equidistant from the center” with “there cannot be any points that are not equidistant from the center”. In both cases, the number of points that have to be tested remains unspecified.
In order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must pick a finite number of points on the boundary of the shape. When you pick a finite number of points on the boundary of the shape, what you have to do is you have to measure the distances between each one of these points and the center of the shape. Once you are done you compare the measured distances. If they are equal, the shape is a circle. If they are not, the shape is not a circle.
Your point in that other thread when you made this claim was merely that you could make the process shorter by declaring that the shape is not a circle the moment you measured a distance that is not the same as previously measured distances. That is true. However, it is irrelevant.
Yes, the above represent an ideal absolute perfect circle that can only exists in theory, thoughts and reason.
The fact is such an ideal absolute perfect circle [empirically based] cannot exists empirically in reality.
In empirical reality, there is no fixed grounds for one to fix every points [centered] to measure from the center of the circle.
One of the closest one can get to a ‘perfect’ circle is construct one by using single carbon atom[s] side by side to draw/mark along the circumference of the circle. But such a circle is at most relative, i.e. relative to carbon atoms, the scientific instruments used and the observer/measurer.
But the fact is carbon atoms are not stable in terms of its electron, proton, quarks, etc. What we have here are moving points in reality [merely one goes out of its intended position] and thus there is no constancy to sustain the concept of a perfect circle.
Therefore there is no such thing and impossible for an absolutely perfect circle to exists in reality.
Another point is a circle is empirically based and thus can be considered for empirical possibility. But ultimately under finer analysis an absolute perfect circle cannot be an empirical possibility in reality.
However note God has no empirical basis at all but is merely thought-based. Thus God has no empirical possibility in reality. An ideal of an absolutely perfect God is worse, it is absolutely an impossibility in reality.
The concept of “perfect circle” is a category of categories. In the same way that an infinite decimal is a category of numbers. In this sense, I do not deny, it is meaningful.
Strictly your own pet theory.
Prove your theory without merely presuming it as premise.
I can’t believe that anyone finds this interesting, let alone that it’s still going on.
Seriously. I called in on the first page. It’s a reformulation of the problem of evil. Anyone posting on a philosophy should know the limits of both sides of this debate like the backs of their hands.
Boring.
The ‘problem of evil’ as I had explained is a subset of this OP’s encompassing thesis, God is an Impossibility.
Your last point was,
viewtopic.php?p=2683397#p2683397
i.e. you insisted you had never heard of people claiming God as what I am presenting, e.g. a perfect God.
I provided a link from SEP re Descartes claiming a Supremely Perfect Being.
I have further argued here, the ultimate of any God must imperatively be an absolutely perfect God, else a theist will end up with an inferior God. When made aware their gods are inferior, a rational believer will opt for a more superior God, the most perfect God and to the ultimate of ‘a Being than which no greater can be conceived’ - the ontological God.
Boring? obviously you are entitled to your opinion.
This proof [God is an Impossibility] is very significant for humanity’s progress and well being.
This proof ‘God is an impossibility’ will cut off the ground for theists absolutely and the most significant is those ‘SOME’ evil prone believers will not have grounds and basis to be inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence as evidently from the past to the present.
I understand the idea of God is a critical psychological necessity for the majority to provide comfort of security against some inevitable angst. Humanity will need to find alternatives [non-theistic spirituality, psychology, etc.] to deal with the inevitable angst.
I argue if you insist on maintaining and sustaining theism, you [may not be aware] are directly or indirectly complicit [providing support via majority consensus] to the existing and future evils & violence committed by those evil prone theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence.
I’ll try to re-iterate in other words. To my mind science is not fundamentally creative.Let me explain. All phenomena is ever present, if does not take perception to validate it, the sense is a development to receive signals, that then are interpreted.
Science merely simulates by analysis of what’s already there.
Ontology is a late development, after the pre conscious made the leap to the existential choice by using acceptabce/rejection as a survival mechanism. Ontology, or The basic logic of exclusion by contradiction has the above sourced dynamic characteristics.
Now the point is, that God in essence, therefore, is not merely a conceptual ontological product. but a staged effect of an existential dynamics, a primordial base of freedom anchored in the choice between acceptance and rejection.
I can elaborate on this kater, but depressing here would needlessly cloud the issue at hand.
So the argument You bring forward about the exclusive ontologocally psychological defense, fails on the face of it.
But bow that, the dynamic God, in terms of an evolving creature, even if, it uses the existential means of survival, developing out of the ontological presumption for god, does so go further and progresses out of the dilemma of logical formalism into the dialectic between the synthetic notion of a middle, an exclusion between necessity as holding, accepting a situation, or rejecting it. Whatever the derive substance in that middle ground, it is the part of and the result of the underlying existential dilemma, which presents to man a signification of conceptual shortcuts, which help him decide what action to choose
Conception has ground, it is not merely an accidentally acquired thought process , but on pre existing conditional prescriptions.ater developing into categorical assumptions, most particularly noticeable with Immanual Kant.
Ideas are sown together and channelled into intricate webs of what comes to be known as knowledge
So God was not a creation of Man, God was a living idea realized by man.Whatever God is interpreted to be, It is not an analysis and a formal body of classification and simulation, which science is, but It is a Creator of adaptative tools to signify and enrich thought processes about the way man can adapt and overcome the obstacles ofife.
That God is much more than that, in fact He is the creator, the agent behind consciousness, I have no doubt.
In the beginning was the word, and that word to become living had to have an agemcy, whereby the agent can become aware of it, and thereby gaining the understanding of who man is, his purpose and his likeness in His image.
I believe [philosophically] you got it wrong here.
Your philosophical stance here is Philosophical Realism.
I agree with the theories of Philosophical Anti-Realism, i,e, Philosophical Realism is not tenable, there are no thing-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
It is quite a long story to argue on this issue but your views here are not tenable.
I had argued,
Me:The only valid reason and usefulness of ‘God exists’ is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.
No matter how you argue, you need to prove God exists in reality.
You have not done that at all but merely making statements, producing no arguments and merely wishing God exists.
Have you ever consider the psychological reasons why you need and must believe in a God?
For a theist is not easy to look at alternative approaches as it can be very painful to deliberate on that ‘divorce’ from theism. But for philosophical sake, it is wiser to learn of other alternatives to deal with that inherent existential crisis.
As a guide, note the philosophies of Buddhism which adopts a psychological approach to deal with that inherent existential crisis.
Not that you care, but that is not true.
When a person repeatedly responds with the same stock phrases, then he is not open to rethinking his position. He’s not even listening.
Sure, and, up to a point, that’s true of all of us.
Now, why don’t you apprise us of all the particular changes that you went through in regard to the existence of God. How have your own assessments evolved over the years?
And, to the extent that you are able, make a distinction between your philosophical/theological assumptions and the actual experiences that you had that nudged you existentially in different directions over time.
Maybe on a brand new thread.
What would that achieve besides entertaining you?
Every time that I write something, you respond that you don’t know how it addresses your points or you don’t understand what I am saying. I have no idea what you want or expect from me. That much I will admit.
You make the accusation that others are not open to new thinking in regard to the existence of God. Okay, how is that not applicable to you in turn? How have your views changed over the years?
Cite particular instances of this.
And, here and now, note the evolution of your thinking [and repeated rethinking] about God and I will respond to it.
Let others judge for themselves the extent to which you have eschewed the “same stock phrases” in addressing this subject.
Who have you listened to in the past — folks able to reconfigure your thinking?
I can name at least a half dozen men and women [in particular circumstances] who had a profound impact on my own thinking.
And my thinking has indeed evolved dramatically over the years. As you recall, I was once myself a devout Christian and a Unitarian.
I’m not going to answer your questions.
I’m not going to cite anything for you.
I’m not going to note anything for you.
I’m not going to discuss anything with you.
Period.
I again need to denote the need to define Who or what God/God is. If God is a plenum of overreaching absolute, a Nietzchean anti overcoming then, God is necessary for Man’s consciousness, in the manner in which he needs self consciousness .to evolve . This is pantheism, and in this sense, men need God for support of belief.
Defining God precedes the argument for his/it’s existence.