God is an Impossibility

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.

Arminius wrote:

That would probably be a contradiction in terms. If some look on humans as things, then the human has been downgraded to a thing.

Just as i cannot see things as being beings ~~ things are not capable of love, hate, emotions, relationships, growth and maturity, except perhaps in an unconscious, evolutionary way, if the latter made sense to you.

So, I am right: Kant did not say “God is an impossibilty”.

The term “human things” comes pretty close to a contradiction.That was the reason why my question above was a more rhetorical one.

Tell me, how can an illusion be real within an empirical-rational reality?? This is one of the central theme of Kant’s thesis in the CPR.
This is why I know and insist your philosophical views are very narrow and shallow.

Btw, the idea of God is a transcendental illusion which is another level beyond the illusion relating to the empirical senses.
Note I spent 3 years full time researching on Kant, so I know what he is talking about. The only provision Kant opened for the possibility of God is on Moral grounds and I don’t agree with that.

How can you claim to be more educated when you are using the the above spurious rhetoric.

It is very stupid to equate ‘God’ = wisdom, truth, logic or reason, then condemn those who insist God is impossible as illogical, irrational, against reason & truth and the likes.
This is the most stupidest idea I have come across in a philosophical discussion.
Show me any reasonable dictionary that equate the above to ‘God’.
Wisdom, truth, logic and reason are very specific philosophical topics with their own specific definition and has no direct association with an illusory God.

Note how ‘god’ is used in other ways;
-a person or thing of supreme value: had photos of baseball’s gods pinned to his bedroom wall; ‘don’t make money your god’
-a powerful ruler: Hollywood gods that control our movies’ fates

In this OP, I have explained and defined what is the idea of God is taken to be.
Note I raised the OP and it is up to me to define what is God with reference to this topic.

See my reply to JSS above.

To clue you in, in the Critique of Reason, Kant raised a detailed chapter [N K Smith] regarding;

Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason …
Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God … 500
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God … 507
Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason . . . . . 525

In the finality following the above, Kant presented the conclusion, the idea of God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. re B397 I quoted above. The conclusion of B397 is based on one big argument represented by the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason.

Gees… you err on so many levels simultaneously. First, you seem to be conflating “illusion” with “delusion”. Especially in Kant’s day, a “illusion” was not a necessarily incorrect imagining. An illusion was simply something that was not actually witnessed by the senses (much like most of what you believe that you read). For example, the image in your mind of a gravitational field pulling a rock toward the Earth, is an illusion. It is an illusion because you cannot actually see a gravitational field. You deduce that the field is there and then might imagine what it would look like if you could see it. As it turns out, all of Newton’s forces are illusions, as well as Einstein’s Relativity ontology, and especially Quantum Physics ontology.

But beyond that, merely because one has never seen a unicorn, doesn’t mean that a unicorn “is impossible”

You claim that I am narrow minded because you can only see your own warped view thus maintain the illusion that if I disagree it can only be because I am incapable of seeing it too. You maintain the illusion that you are right, despite the extreme amount of rationale that everyone has posted displaying the errors in your reasoning.

ALL of what you have been posting is illusionary.

You have the illusion that such actually means anything. People study writings all of their lives and still argue view points that contradict others who have done the same. We have a number of Nietzsche worshipers at this site who quite often argue over what Nietzsche actually mean by what was said and have been doing so for some 10 years.

I couldn’t care less if you spent 100 years studying Kant. When you are wrong, you are wrong.
And sense you imagine yourself such a postmodern intellectual, look up “Nullius in verba

Again, try to pay attention to what you read without so much presumptuous bias. I did NOT say that I am more educated. Read it again.

Sorry, but the claim that you just made is “stupid” and senseless, not to mention again of its ignorance.

So the hatefully, presumptuously bias and undereducated would imagine.

So you’re saying that Truth, Logic, and Wisdom have never had supreme value to anyone??? Even to those you image to have been senseless moneys?

The thought there is a Reality above and more powerful than the magic show was once a new thought.

And you don’t think that Truth (aka “Reality”) is not the true, supreme ruler of your universe??? You think the universe was created by and obeys lies? You believe that there is a power above Reality???

As I stated before, you are supporting the magic worshipers that you profess to be against.

Out of ignorance, sure.

Many people have explained your ignorance to you.

You are so arrogant as to imagine yourself more clever and wise than all of them, yet cannot seem to come up with actual valid logic (or even know what it is). You have been wrong in so many ways, I can’t even keep track of them.

That is partially true. You have the authority to choose WHICH definition of “God” you are trying to refute. But then as a part of that, you would have to prove which claims about God were referring to your defined God verses any other. And more importantly, something you have ignored, is that your “definition” must not be ambiguous, which it is, as you have been told many times.

Your erroneous claim is that THE ONE GOD of the Bible is the one that you have ambiguously defined.

==========================

And then you continue your display of ignorance with this:

In every single case, Kant was stating that coming up with a PROOF was impossible. He never said that God was impossible.

Obviously you do not understand Kant.

Yet you maintain such an illusion.

And then beyond that, Kant happens to be wrong about that conclusion. Even Thomas Aquinas came up with 5 such proofs. Being clueless when it comes to logic, you wouldn’t be able to argue against Aquinas either way. And there are greater proofs than those.

The statement “God is an impossibility” (Prismatic 567) and the statement “The Impossibility of an Ontological (or Cosmological or Trancendental or Physico-theological) Proof of the Existence of God” (Kant) are different statements. You believe that the fact that Kant and you used the word “imposibility” proves the impossibility of God? You are wrong. Note that Kant meant “the proof of God” and that you mean “God” (God himself). Linguistically said: In Kant’s sentence, the object is “proof” (whereas “God” is merely the second gentive object, thus: not the object itself); in your sentence, the object is “God”. “Proof of God is impossible” does not mean “God is impossible”.

So again:

Kant did not say “God is impossible”.

Kant presumably said what he thought was true. But how was he able to demonstrate that what he thought was true about God is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn?

It would seem to come down to this: that there is what we can grasp/know a priori and what we can grasp/know a posteriori. And then, out in the world with others, how the two are intertwined in any particular discussion of a God, the God, my God.

As the Objectivists suggest: “God is not a concept created from perception.”

And:

“The basic idea behind a priori knowledge is that comes without experience, without specifying what the source is. However, Kant took this further, and said that a priori knowledge has a “transcendental” source – based on the form of objects, rather than our experience of them.”

Platonic “forms”?

Not quite, right?

But what then? Kant posits this transcending font as an intellectual contraption that seems necessary in order to motivate folks to always tell the truth when the “inquiring murderer” comes around.

Without God [and the immortality/salvation linked to Him] why would anyone truthfully inform the murderer where his/her victim is?

Unless perhaps it is perceived [in any particular context] to be in your own best interest that the murderer succeed in killing the victim.

For example if the murderer insisted that unless the location was disclosed he/she would kill you too.

In other words, for mere mortals, in a world where it is presumed [by some] that God does not exist, it all comes down to subjective points of view, conflicting goods, and those who have the power to attain and then to sustain a particular set of behaviors.