God is an Impossibility

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: ).

“Being” is the equivalent to the Ancient-Greek “ὄν” (“ón”) whick led to “ontology”, the “science of being”.

Therefore I used the word “being(s)” instead of the word “thing(s)”. The other reason was the succession or the chronology from beings (things) to living beings (things) and to human beings (things).

Now my question: Is it customary to say “human things”?

Depends on the company that you keep. :sunglasses:

Your logical fallacy again.

I am pretty sure that most readers know what is meant by the word “being”.

How do you come to the false conclusion again that it would be “ridiculous” to define “God as a non-living without agency”?

Do your mutual masterbation somewhere else and get to the points.

The default is; God is the creator of the Whole Universe. It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency.

If you bother to stop and think, it is “ridiculous” to think that the God that created literally all physical existence, is a “living being”.

But of course, you have trouble with defining “living” anyway.