God is an Impossibility

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”?

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

[b]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.
[/b]

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.