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”.
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.
As a general description of “how things work”, probably. But there is still the part where our conception of God becomes intertwined in our actual perceptions of the world around us. Perceptions embedded in turn in the existential trajectory that encompasses/embodies our own personal experiences. Such that the definitions and the meaning that we give to the words used in our argument/analysis [regarding God] are fleshed out: intellectual contraptions able to be verified or falsified empirically, phenomenally.
Something that all agree on regarding God is a consensus. But that is not necessarily the same thing as an objective fact true for all of us.
But “such a God” is still basically one that is defined or deduced into existence. Which is not the same as demonstrating that in fact God is an impossibility. We just don’t/won’t know that until a frame of mind can be concocted wholy in sync with whatever a priori and a posteriori truth/reality actually is.
In the interim we all take own own leap of faith to one or another set of assumptions.
The distinction I make here, though, is between those who embrace what I construe to be an objectivist frame of mind and those who don’t. In other words, the extent to which someone encompasses an argument about God that seems to revolve entirely around the assumption that unless others share it they are necessarily wrong. Why? Because the objectivists insist that their own arguments are necessarily right.
But right how?
By definition? Based of a set of premises, precipitating a particular meaning [conclusion] presumed to the necessarily true? Where is the part where the words can be wholly integrated into a world that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us.
Sooner or later words like “absolute” and “perfect” either define or describe a God able to be encompassed empirically, or they don’t.
Okay, but how do they grapple with morality in a world where it is presumed that there is no immortality and salvation? A world in which right and wrong are clearly emboddied historically, culturally and experientially?
How [in a world sans God] are they able to interact with others and not tumble down into this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
From my own frame of mind, this is no less applicable to the practitioners of Eastern philosophies.
I agree. But this doesn’t make the horror of extinction or an essentially absurd and meaningless world any less daunting for the No God folks.
And, given that, I don’t expect that God and religion will ever wither away entirely. Or not even for the majority of actual flesh and blood human beings.
Subjectivists are those who insist that their own arguments are necessarily right. The word “own” already stands for this. Additionaly, subjectivists have more reasons to insist that their own arguments are necessarily right, because they lack objectivity, at least always more than objectivists lack subjectivity. It is not difficult to be a subjectivist, it is more difficult to be an objectivist. Objectivists consider the objects before considering their own emotions and other endogenous affects - that is difficult enough and probably not completely possible. Subjectivists do just the opposite - that is not difficult, although probably not completely possible either.
There are nonetheless many people who state to be, but are not objectivists. So, I am not talking about those alleged objectivists here. Most people are subjectivists, regardless whether they know it or not.
You are off track in all your replies, I will not waste time on all of them.
One clear example is the above,
Note I did not claim the above use of “impossibility” by Kant in those sections is translated to Kant proving God’s existence is an impossibility.
Note I begin the point with;
“To clue you in…”
I give you another clue re Kant stating the idea of God is an illusion, thus cannot be real within empirical-rational reality. Kant sense of ‘illusion’ in this case refer to ‘a transcendental illusion’ and not as empirical illusion.
In all cases whether it is an empirical or transcendental illusion, such illusions cannot be real within empirical-rational reality.
You have to have a thorough understanding of Kant’s CPR to know how Kant’s conclusion is God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
It is advised by many who are in the know, to understand Kant reasonably one has to spent at least 3 years full time [this is what I did] or 5 years part time researching and reading Kant. From what you have posted of Kant, I don’t see you have understood Kant’s philosophy and thus your critiques and counter are really baseless and has no credibility to say Kant is wrong.
What don’t you read up Kant’s point [at least 3 years full time] and provide your counters to them?
All truths = means ALL regardless of
“how things work” or otherwise.
Thus to assess the “truthfulness” of any conclusion we must assess the reliability of the elements and basis of the specific Framework.
For example, it is obvious scientific truths has high objectivity and credibility because of its Framework [with its assumption] and openness to verification, repeatable testing by anyone and producing consistent conclusion subject to its framework.
The claims of God’s existence has consensus of the majority [90% of humans] but the framework it relied upon is loose [not like the one from science] and not credible, i.e. cannot be empirically tested and verified, and I have extended to prove it is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Yes God is actually ‘abduced’ not deduced into existence based on primitive* reason [instinctual] rather than based on the higher cortical faculty of reason. * Most higher animals would use such low level instinctual reason.
I have proven when such a reasoned God is cornered it will end up as an absolutely perfect God which is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
I have stated the actual grounds and basis for the emergence of a God is due to psychological reason driven by an existential crisis. The problem is most theists are ignorant of this and rather would be driven to look outside themselves as they have been relying for psychological security from external parents, so by habits and customs, an external God [Hume’s constant conjunction].
Not sure of the above.
As stated earlier, whatever is claimed to be right or true must be qualified to the framework they relied upon. As for the ‘objectivists’ I note they have questionable assumptions within their framework.
DNA wise, the drive for morality is inherent in all humans.
Religions do promote Morality & Ethics, that is one pro but it is only a very limited one.
The problem is the Abrahamic religions froze whatever ideas of morality in immutable holy books from God and thus stop it from its natural development to cope with inevitable changes within humanity and reality.
Since there is an inherent drive for Morality & Ethics within humans, the non-religious are improving and making progress on Morality naturally to cope with change.
The drive for Morality & Ethics are represented by real neurons and its relevant neural circuits within the brain. There is no way immutable holy verses can stop its progress.
One example is slavery. The Abrahamic religion implicitly condone and promote slavery and this is based on immutable verses from God which cannot be changed eternally.
OTOH, the secular authorities has banned slavery all over the World with serious penalties for non-compliance. No doubt some people will still practice slavery illegally but at least humanity has something legal to work towards the elimination of slavery.
This is one pro [advancing] over religions.
As far as Morality is concern it is stagnant in the dirty immutable pools of theism but Morality unchained will progress within secularism.
I agree theism [at present, not future] is a critical necessity for the majority to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Therefore I will not advocate the elimination of theism at present nor the very near future.
But given the evidence that the cons of theism* are progressing toward outweighing its cons, humanity must strive at the present to embark on a project to wean off [voluntarily] and replace theism expeditiously with foolproof alternatives to deal with that same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
from the Abrahamic religions especially Islam which has moral support from theism in general.
The Eastern non-theistic religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, etc] are already resolving that same existential crisis without any evil baggage, so it is possible to wean off theism in the future or ASAP.
Here of course we can get into the entirely technical discussion between epistemologists regarding precisely what it means to distinguish subjective from objective. Indeed, in a wholly determined universe the distinction would seem to be an illusion. The trick of a mind convinced that “I” is actually able to make these distinctions autonomously on threads like this.
Me, I draw the line between those things that we think we know and those things we are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to know in turn. Something is true objectively to the extent that we can determine that it is true for all of us.
But: only to the extent that we can accomplish this given the gap between what any particular one of us think we know here and now and all that would need to be known in order to encompass [ontologically] What Existence Is. And then [teleologically] Why It Is What It Is.
Does existence serve some purpose?
God’s, perhaps?
Instead, all too often these rather ponderous discussions revolve more around an exchange of “general descriptions” like this one:
What on earth are we to make of this?! Describe a particular context in which flesh and blood human beings interact and note these distinctions with respect to actual behaviors. Behaviors seemingly rooted in the either/or world [true essentially for all of us] and then our reaction to those behaviors as this becomes embodied/entangled in the is/ought world [true existentially from a particular point of view].
Liberals do not qualify as rational so many people will be excluded for liberals live subjectively in their heads disregarding the surrounding objective reality that is shared by all.
Natural/known by all rational men and women…heterosexuality is normal (90% of the population), homosexuality is abnormal (10% of the population), beastiality is more abnormal (8% of the population), pedophilia is even more abnormal (3% of the population), transexualism is even more abnormal (1% of the population).
Abnormal-Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.
A deviant is someone whose behavior falls far outside of societies norms. Liberals are deviants who support other deviants (homosexuals and transexuals currently) and promote deviant behaviors (homosexuality and transexuality).
Crap…off topic. What to say about God? God is more real, more possible than a liberal.
That is one of more possible reasons why “liberals” believe that God is “impossible” (Prismatic 567) or at least less possible than they themselves are: they are less possible than God, and as “liberal” god(wannabe)s they do not tolerate God besides them.
Again you missed my point!
As I had asserted, your philosophical views are too narrow and shallow.
I wonder you understand Kant’s ‘woken up from dogmatic slumber by Hume’. Before Kant there was the serious position of the dichotomy between empiricism versus rationalism [the twain will never meet]. Kant reconciled the differences and demonstrated both need to work in complementarity with each other to understand reality. This give rise to the philosophical view of the Empirical-Rationality Reality.
Empirical-Rationality Reality is the interpretation of reality based on the empirical [Science, etc.] and complemented by philosophical [logic, wisdom, and all relevant tools] thoughts.
The empirical element in Science is cannot be strong credibility for knowledge, it has to be complemented with rational elements of a framework [Scientific Method, assumptions, peer review, etc.] that is philosophical.
To understand reality per-se humanity need to understand its imperative and inevitable empirical based to be complemented with Philosophy-proper [as defined].
With the idealized God, it is void of any empirical element to start with and thus is moot and a non-starter for consideration whether it is real [empirical-rational] or not.
Let me clue you in re Russell in History of Western Philosophy, where he presented a realistic view of reality where empiricism [e.g. Science] merges with the rationality of philosophy rather than the dogma of certainty from theology;
What kind of philosophical view is that?
An absolute perfect one Reality is an impossibility.
What??
So what is ‘objective’?
‘Objective’ is none other than intersubjective consensus based on empirical evidence.
Do you agree accepted ‘Scientific Theories’ are objective, i.e. can be repeated tested by any one and arriving at the same conclusion.
I can guess, your sense of objective are those Plato’s Forms, the theistic God that exist independent of human conditions which can never be proven to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
Yes, it is Crap, not off topic, but way off in countering the OP.
Btw, are you aware of the Normal Curve aka Bell Curve.
The main principle of the Bell Curve is for large populations like 7+ billion humans, human variables [as evidenced] are Normally [natural] Distributed as within the elementary principles of the Bell Curve.
Thus for each variable considered there is the mean, average and opposites on the extremes of both sides of the Curve.
For example take “intelligence,” of all humans, what we have is 66% average, 30 above and below average intelligence and at the extreme we have 1% of highly intelligent people and at the other extreme 1% of very stupid people.
Yes, the 1% of highly intelligence people deviated extremely from the mean, but to label them ‘deviant’ in a pejorative and derogatory is immorally wrong in this particular context. It is the same for labeling the very stupid as deviant.
So when we take human sexuality into consideration, by the principles of the Bell Curve, there will be naturally a percentile [say 5%] whose sexuality will deviate from the mean or average. Since it is natural, it is immorally wrong to label them as ‘deviant’ with a pejorative and derogatory attitude.
Take human height, there will be a percentile of people [adults] with a range of average height but at the extreme we have 1% who are below 3 feet and 1% above 7 feet.
It is the same for the political spectrum, there will be the majority average and those at both ends of the extreme.
To merely call out the liberal for condemnation is very philosophical immature. What we have are the small % of extremes from the ‘Right’ and ‘Left.’
Btw, I am neither left nor right. I don’t agree with such specific dualistic labels.
Where are your proofs?
This is a philosohical forum and it thus not proper simply to make such unsupported assertions.
P1: God must be a divine being.
P2: Anything less than a divine being is not God.
Humans are unable to “entirely” conceive of the divine.
Therefore: anything of which a human may conceive is necessarily less than divine.
Therefore: anything of which a human may conceive is not God.
If God may not be conceived by a human, then humans are unable to conceive of God.
Therefore anything conceived by a human “as God” is not “God”.
But it is commonly accepted that man cannot truly conceive of the actual God. It is accepted that God cannot be conceived of by man, and that is a part of what God, God.
But even still, the conceivablity of God is merely one of many characteristics attributed to God, not a definitive attribute.
Could God not just reveal himself to humans without them having to first conceive of him
And then would that revelation not be how they would conceive of him from that point on
“Humans are unable to “entirely” conceive of the divine.”
Note St. Anselm’s Ontological God, i.e.
“God is a being than which not greater can be conceived”
Therefore God can be entirely be conceived as claimed by St. Anselm.
There are many perspectives where God can be claimed to exists, e.g. moral, reasoning [primal], psychological, madness, etc. However in all these perspective there is no solid grounds for God to exists as real within an empirical-rational reality.
Thus it is critical to qualify God is an impossibility within the default empirical-rational reality.
To me, it obvious God is an impossibility to be real within empirical-rational reality because I am well aware the illusory God is idealized via desperate psychological existential impulses to deal with an existential crisis. This point is supported by Eastern non-theistic spiritualities.
Why don’t you do an experiment. Measure the height of a randomly picked 1 million people, and present the data on a graph and it will represented like [of course not 100% like the theoretical model] the standard Bell Curve.
If you can get access to the IQ ratings of a large number of people generally [without deliberate bias] it will conform to the Bell Curve with very small percentile at both extremes, i.e. very stupid and very intelligent people with the majority as the average within 1-2 SD.
Okay Prismatic, show me how you use your infamous bell curve to display human behaviors such as sexuality. Would the most abnormal low end, natural/normal in your book, extreme be sexing up multiple corpses simultaneously? The most abnormal high end, natural/normal in your book, extreme be sexing multiple babies simultaneously?
The illness of liberalism is to think that every behavior is equally natural…normal when there are examples of appalling behaviors done by rather distinct minorities and by being in those minorities it becomes apparent that their sexual behaviors are unnatural, abnormal, perverse, sick compared to the majority of consenting, heterosexual adults.
