God is an Impossibility

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.

Your new scape-goat now is “Within Empirical-Rational Reality”.
:laughing:

Got news forya:

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. :evilfun:

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. :wink:

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”.

QED: God does not exist to humans.

At least a well stated argument.

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.

And btw, the Bell curve truly fits almost nothing concerning people.

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

“P1: God must be a divine being.”
What do you mean by “divine”?

dictionary.com/browse/divine

“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.

He would do it the same way he does everything else; presumption, speculation, and condemnation.

Yes, are you saying this not covered within the argument? Seeing as He would only appear at the very maximum to be part of God, and so the whole of that which would be appearing would always necessarily be less than God, thus to Man, that which would be appearing would necessarily not suffice to be God and therefore not be God. It could claim to be God, “but you just aren’t able to see it”, but anything that wasn’t God could claim to be more than it was and be tricking Man. As an unfalsifiable claim, it would fail to be rational to take the being by its word - and further, even if one did “have faith” of “the rest”, “the rest” as necessarily inconceivable to Man would be not be able to be anything to Man, and thus to Man be “nothing”. Therefore one’s faith would indeed be in nothing - that there was an unseen aspect to the being claiming to be God would thereby not be a faith, as a faith in cannot be a faith. So my argument is not only a logical proof of the non-existence of God, but also a logical proof that a belief in God is in fact the ultimate Nihilism - as not just a grand statement but a necessary truth.

Surely it is a necessary attribute?

And if a necessary attribute of something is impossible, then surely the whole of that thing is impossible? At the very least it must be redefined, and in line with my Premise 2, I don’t think anything less than divine could ever really cut it as an acceptable definition of God. It would not be divine but mundane - just another aspect of the natural universe that we already have words for.

I think the meaning of “divine” in my argument is implied within the argument - it is that which is necessarily beyond the conception of Man. The divine is such that “Humans are unable to “entirely” conceive of the divine.” It is supposed to be something more than the mundane, of which Man can by definition at least potentially be able to conceive all aspects. All aspects of divinity by definition would surely not be conceivable else it wouldn’t be beyond the mundane, it is supposed to at least in part be “beyond” the mundane in order to be “divine”.

As such, I think it unreasonable to define God as St. Anselm did. “Than which not greater can be conceived”, despite being impressively great of course, would still be mundane to Man as it would be entirely accessible in terms of conception and just be part of the normal natural world, which as I have said above, “we already have words for” that do not have any connotations with the supernatural and that which is outside of humanity’s faculties to grasp. A being “than which not greater can be conceived” would just be everything i.e. the universe. Anything unnecessary “beyond” the universe would not be within the set “everything” and therefore be “nothing”. The universe as it is, naturally existing, is at least in theory fully accessible such that it would be entirely conceivable (but we just haven’t done it yet), and this is distinct from something that by definition would necessarily not be even potentially entirely conceivable, because at least some element of it would have to be necessarily beyond Man in order for it to be “divine”.

As covered by the argument, such a revelation would indeed be “how they would conceive of him from that point on”, but such a conception would lack divinity (and therefore not suffice as God in the minds of humans) because it would not include anything that was beyond man, and therefore not be divine, and therefore not be indicative of God. In order for God to show himself as God to humans, He would have to show an element of Himself to Man that is not possible to show to Man because it would be by definition beyond Man. This is logically impossible, so for all we could possibly know (as I explained earlier in this post), any revelation of “part” of God could be anything ungodly claiming to be God. And the entirety of what we did see of the revelation would be not be God to us anyway. To humans, as the title of this thread says, “God is an impossibility”.

To YOU! And this means that it is your own, your subjectie opinion, belief, religion, theology/theorie - but not more. Objectively said, you are wrong. Your logical conclusions are false. And already many people have said that to you.

Why are you so stubborn?

Your subjective opinion may be supported as much as you want it to be: it does not matter, because you have no argument, you have no proof, you have no evidence, you have nothing except your subjective statement based upon a logical fallacy.

No. You are conflating an appearance of, with a reality of. One can define a “God” and have a general sense of a conception, even though one cannot precisely conceive of it. A simple example would be an object with 1433 sides. One can define it. One could even build it. But no one is going to actually envision or conceive of it.

“God” has a definition, although many enjoy arguing over it. But as it is defined, the human mind cannot actually conceive of it. And also as it is properly defined, it is absurd to claim that it does not exist (but that’s another story).