God is an Impossibility

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.

You are running out of ideas to counter my arguments.
It is obvious the idea of God is attributed with qualities that are different from living human beings.
“living” as attributed to God meant ‘active’ i.e. capable of generating effects rather than ‘dead’ or ‘dormant’.

Well, you have only been wrong in a limited number of ways. Even you haven’t been infinitely wrong.

But you not accepting what everyone is telling you are your errors, hardly negates the fact that they are errors.

A static or “potential” electric field is capable of generating effects - electric current. That is why it is called “potential”. Every form of potential energy is capable of generating actualized energy (eg. kinetic, electric, whatever).

So every potential is “living”?
They do call it “a live wire”.
But that’s seems a poor definition of “living” and in this case, undermines your final intent.

It is not ridiculous. So you have concluded falsely agian.

Why do you not say: “Living beings or living things are not perfect; so it is very likely that God is different from them”? This would make much more sense than your ridiculous statement: “It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency”.

Ultimately? In my view, only in the sense that this is circumscribed within the parameters of your own definitions and meaning. And thus circumventing the definitions and the meanings of those who don’t share them.

I’m less interested in what Kant did or did not say about the transcending font/Moral Framework, and more interested in what, for all practical purposes, he was able to demonstrate as true for all of us “out in the world” of actual human interactions. Sans God, what is the most [or the only] rational argument when confronting the “inquiring intruder”?

Still, you state these things in the manner of what I construe to be an objectivist frame of mind. As though infinitesimally tiny specks of existence in the vastness of All There Is [you and I] could actually be privy to the one and only explanation regarding matters like this.

And, sure, you may well be. But the fact that others here dispute your definitions, meaning and logic speaks volumes regarding that yawning gap between what we think we know about God [here and now] and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate conclusively what all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

And there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of objectivists out there all clamoring to insist that their own take on God finally does pin Him down.

For example, the Real God. Right, James?

Okay, but even secular philosophers have to grapple with conflicting goods on this side of the grave. How are they not in the same boat as the rest of us?

How [for all practical purposes] are their own values [out in any particular world] not entangled in the manner in which I construe the existential interaction of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

God in my view is the only entity that all of this can be subsumed in. Other than the profound mystery that would come embedded in a wholly determined universe.

Kant did not say “God is an impossibilty”.

All truths are circumscribed within the parameters of a specific framework of principles, definitions, meanings, assumptions etc.
If it is a personal, then it is subjective and has minimal credibility until it is shared and agreed by many.

The ultimate idea of God as an absolutely perfect God is inferred from various terms and definition of God is not mine but claimed by the majority of theists, i.e. 5.4 out of all 7+ billion people. As such my inference has a credible basis.

Based on the above, I have supported with detailed arguments why such a God is an impossibility.

Obviously there will be disputes.
But so far there is no convincing counter from anyone against my arguments.
You meant JSS’ counter based on his narrow-minded definition of ‘perfect’ which ignore its association with ‘absolute’?

Non-theistic spiritualities do grapple with mortality but they do not venture beyond the grave to promote a soul that survive physical death with an eternal life in heaven or paradise.

God is only an idea [not even a concept] which is non-empirical. God emerges as a thought to subsume [& relieve] all the related psychological sufferings arising from an existential crisis. God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
What is worst is the idea of God as a psychological crutch is double-edged and bring along its negative baggage of terrible evils, terror and violence against non-believers.

Non-theistic spiritualities like Buddhism and others address the psychological suffering directly and deal with it on a spiritual-psychological basis. There is no consideration for what happen on the other side of the grave, e.g. eternal life in Paradise. The plus point of these spiritualities is its holy texts do not contain evil laden elements that inspire its % of evil prone believers to commit evils in the name of its founder.

If you read the CPR carefully, you will note [read carefully] Kant concluded [not in exact] words, “God is an impossibility” within an empirical-rational reality.

Here is one clue [mine] where the idea of a God is illusory without empirical premisses;

???
Wow, you must have quite an imaginative bias when reading. Exactly how did you pick “impossible” out of Kant’s phrasing?

Btw, are you aware that to many far more educated, “God” is (has always referred to) Logic or Reason itself? To some “God” refers to Wisdom itself (slightly different than Reason). And to some “God” has always been referring to Truth itself. To say that God is “impossible” is to say that “Logic/Reasoning, Wisdom, or Truth is impossible”. In postmodern times, it is a move against using reason and truth and in favor of restoring emotionalism, magic, and mysticism. You are supporting the postmodernists, yet obviously unaware of that.