God is an Impossibility

I said to be empirically possible, whatever must have empirical elements.
The only possible empirical agency of greater power than humans we can link to is human-liked.
What was speculated was “miraculous” relative to what human can do. You can say it is 'god-liked" but in this case it is not God per-se. Whatever is it like, if it is empirically possible, it must have empirical elements.

You have to read the thread again.
Generally what is empirical based cannot be absolutely perfect which is transcendental and beyond the empirical.

Didn’t you catch the definition,
“an absolutely perfect God = a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.”

Your counter is too shallow.
I have already given you a basic definition of ‘perfect’ from the dictionary with an extension to perfect = absolute, total, and unqualified.
Btw, do you understand what is absolute, total and unqualified?

My meaning of perfect cover the full range from the empirical [qualified] to the absolute [unqualified].

I have explained the term ‘absolutely perfect’ arise out of psychological impulses and such a term is at best a thought which cannot be represented by anything in reality, thus an impossibility.

That seems kind of silly. Are you under the illusion that no being can be greater than human???
Wow … :confused:

And btw, to the LDS Mormons, God IS “human like”.

I never said the above.
You missed my point.

What I stated is;
It is possible for beings to be real and greater [in power, whatever] than human beings on Earth.
However to be possibly real, such being must have at least basic empirical anthropomorphic qualities, e.g. the bearded man in the sky.

If it does not have human physical qualities, it must at least have human like agency and consciousness. If such aliens are identified as non-empirical, then it has no emprical basis and cannot be proven [empirically and rationally] to be real at all.

Thus is it possible to have human-liked [the most basic] aliens [empirically based] who are highly intelligent existing somewhere billions of light years away. Perhaps what is going on in our known Universe is merely a reality-TV show for them! We can speculate on anything for them as long as they are empirically based. The ultimate is the production of empirical evidence to prove their objective existence.
It has to be empirically based so that its existence can be confirmed [empirically and rationaly] if empirical evidence are produced for verification of its existence.

It could be human like but being monotheistic, it is ultimately to be more likely an absolutely perfect God which is thus an impossibility.

There are those who believe their God is monkey-liked existing somewhere in the Universe.
If they do not insist such a god is absolutely perfect, then I can accept such a god is empirically possible [of negligible probability]. So the question of realness is for them to produce the empirically evidence for a real monkey-liked to appear for empirical testing and verification. Based on current knowledge, the possibility of such an empirically-based monkey-liked god is very unlikely.

Note theists who claimed their monkey-liked god exists will naturally concede their God is not absolutely perfect as such a monkey-god [hanuman] cannot be superior to a elephant-liked God [Ganesha]. In general, empirically an elephant is more powerful than a monkey in nature.

Normally those who believe in a monkey-liked God and other empirical based Gods will also believe in one absolute supreme perfect God that dominates all other god [e.g. Brahman of Hinduism]. Such a supreme God is generally idealized as an absolutely perfect God which cannot be empirical, thus an impossibility.

True. But I can dream, can’t I? [-o<

But then we are back to connecting the dots between any particular set of premises and any particular conclusion [like Kant’s] to an actual extant God one is able to demonstrate does in fact exist. And then we are back to why anyone would be motivated to tell the “inquiring murderer” that a friend was in the house, unless they were able to convince themselves that a transcending font does see all.

Apparently, philosophically, these things can become quite convoluted: myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/InquiringMurderer.asp

Yes, that and the fact that the evolution of life on planet earth has resulted in mindful matter [the human brain] actually able to ponder why something happens one way and not another way. And that would seem inevitably to lead to this: pondering why anything happens at all.

And isn’t “God” one possible explanation?

What always staggers my mind though [above all else] is the possibility that in a wholly determined universe even this exchange itself is only as it ever could have been!!

How does “I” even begin to wrap itself around that? If that is even within the reach of “I” autonomously.

The fact of Existence Itself seems to get more and more bewildering [staggering] the vaster the universe – the multiverse? – becomes.

Again, from my frame of mind, “good” and “evil” are existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. It’s just that for the theists, they become Good and Evil, embedded in the essential will of a God, the God, their God. .

Still, until the practitioners of “Eastern spiritualities” are able to connect the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave, and that which they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave, and that which “in their head” they conceive to be God, how are they not in the same boat that the practitioners of “Western spiritualities” are in.

Here, I see very little difference at all.

In other words, the less God becomes an intellectual contraption discussed in places like this, the more He becomes a psychological contraption to comfort and console those in the face of all of the many staggering vicissitudes that follow them from the cradle to the grave.

Or: Have you talked yourself into believing that God does exist and therefore anything you are able to believe in can be seen as the work of God?

Then back to square one: What particular God demonstrated to in fact exist?

It’s either how you connect the dots in your head to the material world that we live in, or you are willing to nestle blissfully in the comfort and the consolation of what you are able to believe is true in your head.

Wow, could it really be that simple?! :-k

I don’t know why you ask the question. I have always admitted the possibility of errors. I have admitted that my thoughts about God may be entirely wrong. It’s possible that there is no god. I have written several times that if a person sees no evidence of God then he ought to be an atheist - that is the rational position.

In the spirit of Arthur C. Clarke’s “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” … advanced aliens would appear to us as gods and their actions would appear miraculous. Given your example, aliens are one possible explanation but not the only explanation. From observing the events, one would favor one explanation over another.

What I found interesting about Prismatic’s response is how quickly he jumped on the ‘alien explanation’. It seems that “God did it” was not even considered as a possibility. So for you it is evidence of God but for him it is not. I replied in order to get him to say what he would consider to be evidence of God or how he would distinguish an event caused by aliens from an event caused by God.

Alas, it looks like I’m not going to get an answer. :frowning:

And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that “being” merely means “an existence”, not “anthropomorphic”.

Also wrong. Empiricism is not the only way to prove something. Empiracism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses. It alone never proves anything. It is LOGIC that proves or disproves.

Your attempt at logic is empirical evidence that you believe that it is logic that proves or disproves. Yet you will probably argue anyway.

I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves …

What is dreamt is always conditioned to the dreamer, thus empirical.
If you dream of a God, ultimately it is still an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

Kant only stated a God can exists within the Moral Framework [as qualified] which ultimately is absolute and thus an impossibility.

Re Kant’s “inquiring murderer” this is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. It is too deep to explain and discuss here.

As I had stated above.
“The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.”
If you dig into this thesis and understand your empirical “I” [know thyself] you are more likely to get the answer and have better control of yourself than chasing eternally expanding infinities out there.

Yes, ‘god’ is one answer but it is an impulsive one like how Hume demonstrated induction is from one’s internal psychology of customs and habits from constant conjunctions.

Note I was referring to non-theistic Eastern philosophies and the question of what lies on the other side of the grave [God & afterlife] do not arise.

Again you are so shallow.
There is no reason why we cannot add additional qualities to ‘being’.
Note the popular argument from Kant, ‘existence’ is never a predicate.
‘Being’ or ‘existence’ implied existing as something, e.g. as a human being with its recognized qualities, an apple exists as a fruit, etc.

Again you are shallow.
How are Scientific Theories proven other than relying on empirical evidences?
How did a prosecutor proved a person is a murderer in court?

Yes, it alone never proves anything. Didn’t you read my point where I stated “proven [empirically and rationally]” Obviously rationally implied the use of logic and other thinking tools.

Isn’t this a mix of the empirical and the rational which I had stated above.
Example. Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.

Suggest you think deeper and come up with better counters than the above which are frivolous.

Blind following the ignorant! Think for yourself.

Note:
Being:

  1. existence.
    “the railway brought many towns into being”
    synonyms: existence, living, life, animation, animateness, aliveness, reality, actuality, essential nature, lifeblood, vital force, entity; esse
    “she finds herself warmed by his very being”

  2. the nature or essence of a person.

‘being’ is thus related to living and non-living things, or things with or without agency [action or intervention producing a particular effect.]

Since this OP is about God which must be a ‘living’ thing with agency it would be ridiculous to defined God as a non-living without agency.

Wow. :laughing:
#-o

I guess he proved you right.
[-(

And just to clue you in, Einstein’s version of the theory of gravity was not only never proven correct, but has been proven incorrect. But that discussion is way, way too deep for you. It, like all Relativity, has merely been proven useful mathematics in specific cases only. One can get a correct answer to a calculation without having a correct understanding. Einstein himself said that something was wrong with his theories, his Relativity Ontology. Some people, like the QM with their different ontology, disagree with him and still other people know why.

The more you counter the more it exposes the dumbness of your views.

You claimed the following which is wrong!

Note the meaning of ‘prove’.

Generally it is not Logic that directly proves nor disproves.
It is the argument where logic is part of.

I did not claim Einstein’s theory is absolutely true as no Scientific Theories can be absolutely true.
Newton’s Theories is true relative to a specific perspective but not necessary in terms of Einstein’s perspective, and Einstein’s theories may not work within the QM perspective.
What is scientifically true is always qualified to specific conditions.
Where Einstein’s [or any Scientific] theory is accepted as true and applicable, the proof is based on empirical evidence and rationality.

8 Ways You Can See Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Real Life
livescience.com/58245-theor … -life.html

Btw, don’t bring in ‘ontology’ [like magic] into Science. Ontology is never science.

Apparently he will never understand what “ontology” means either.

Preachers never learn. I can’t imagine why. :confused:

Yes, of course. But he did not realize it. (Psst!) :-$ :laughing:

Not only do they disagree with him. This two different theories are so much different frome each other, that one can say that they refer to two different realities, two different worlds; and since these described realities (worlds) are so much different from each other and we can only have one reality (worlds) by definition, either one or both of the theories must be false.

There are (a) incapable preachers, (b) preachers who use their preaching as a defense mechanism against learning, (c) preachers who get money for their preaching, thus they get money in order to not learn.

There has to be a (d) in there somewhere ~~not all preachers are charlatans, puppeteers, greedy…ad continuum.
The word preacher does at times seem to add a flavor of distaste to one’s buds but there are those who are wise and caring and whose only intention is to humbly guide and to let in some light, so to speak.

Arminius,

Being is kind of a tricky word isn’t it, especially when worded that way with an s…at least to me it is.
Being implies something which is living and animated and has drive and purpose, so to speak.
Certain things do have existence and essence like rocks but do we really want to refer to them as beings?

Normally they are referred to as things. Now things do have their place within existence but is a rock a being?
Can anything be called a being simply because it is in a state of being? Are there to be no distinctions at all?
Distinctions are important.

The same then being true regarding the existence of objective morality. For all practical purposes, it all basically comes down to “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine.” Some merely defend their own values by arguing for a particular set of premises. Then those on the other side defend a conflicting set of premises.

While the sociopaths couldn’t care less.

Which is why the existence of God is so crucial here. With God there is that critical transcending point of view able to establish [on Judgment Day] a clear distinction between the saint and the sinner.

There is no question of “being caught” for your transgressions. There is no question of “being punished”.

And there it is [for most]: the looming abyss. The need to be “saved” from it.

Maybe, but [eventually] that just brings us around to this: theodicy. Aliens or not, the consequence of their behaviors [whatever the technology] will be judged. As right or wrong. As good or evil.

You either have faith in one or another God/religion here or you don’t.

Beyond faith though…?

Hell, when push comes to shove, even if we were able to convince ourselves that there is evidence for the existence of a God, the God, how would we really know for sure that all of this isn’t just unfolding in one or another sim world…or in one or another Cartesian demonic dream…or in one or another entirely solipsistic contraption.

Or maybe it is all unfolding, given the immutable laws of matter, only as it ever could unfold.

Eventually bringing it all around to this: why does existence exist at all? And why this one?

That is why they invented adjectives and adverbs; Living being, inanimate being, free being, spiritual being, artificial being…

The word obviously came from “to be”, to exist. Imagine that notion of absolute nothingness. Then imagine a rock appears within that void. That rock would be and be the only being.

If you insist that a being must be a living being, then define “living” in a unambiguous way. :sunglasses:

Just because something reveals to you, doesn’t mean that it was a living being. Science says many things. Is Science a living being? With human features?

Really? Who ever actually said that God is a “living thing”? “Supreme Being”, yes. “Perfect Being”, yes. "Infinite Being, yes. I don’t remember “living thing” ever being a part of any definition of “God”. But then define “living” in a scriptural way. Superficial, naive presumption leads to all kinds of myths and consequential rants born from such ignorant presumption (such as “God must be empirical and thus impossible:confused: ).