God is an Impossibility

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).

But the “scientific Framework” is no less embedded in all that one would need to know in order to close David Hume’s gap between “correlation” and “cause and effect”. And how exactly would any particular mere mortal go about either falsifying or verifying the very ontological nature of Existence itself?!

Indeed, this is clearly a reason why folks invent Gods. And, with God, there is that crucial teleological component as well.

But, from my frame of mind, it’s all “in their head”. At least until they can demonstrate otherwise.

And that’s important to note because I am not arguing that it can’t be done, only that no one has succeeded of late in convincing me that we don’t live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that culminates in oblivion.

From my frame of mind all you have proven is that if others accept your premises/assumptions/definitions/meaning regarding the existence of God then they accept your conclusions.

But you are no closer to actually demonstrating that God does not exist than they are in demonstrating that He does. It just seems more reasonable that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that something does exist.

Instead, what I see over and and over again on threads like this are the irresistible force intellectual contraptions smashing headlong into the immovable object intellectual contraptions.

And then – gasp! – no one budging an inch.

As though the part about theodicy and immortality and salvation and divine justice were just incidental.

By and large I agree. But only in the sense that I recognize my own frame of mind [here and now] as just one more existential contraption. I would never argue that I have actually proven anything.

All claims of proof here [relating to questions this consequential] are seen by me as psychological contraptions.

It’s just that the “scientific framework” seems considerably more rigorous in demonstrating what it is rational to believe in the either/or world.

Yes, we are hard wired biologically as a species to exist. And that means to subsist. And that means acquiring food and water and shelter. And reproducing. And defending ourselves against enemies. Morality thus is just the recognition that in interacting over time [historically] and space [culturally] to sustain all of this, our wants and needs will sometimes collide. Rules of behavior must be established.

But whose rules? Based on what assumptions? Enforced by what actual power?

Well, if God exists then His rules. His assumptions. His power.

This is just one more self-delusion to me: No God but human beings can still make moral progress.

Says who? Based on what assumptions? Assumptions that are not instead just conflicting sets of political prejudices.

For the secular Humanists [liberal or conservative or individualist or collectivist] what constitutes moral progress regarding issues like abortion or gun control or social justice or the role of government? How are the conflicting goods dissolved?

Even slavery can be rationalized. Hell, even genocide has been.

And, for the sociopath, morality revolves entirely around self-interest. Or, for any number of nihilists [those who own and operate the global economy], it revolves around “show me the money”.

Here [and now] I don’t agree.

With respect to conflicting value judgments, “Eastern non-theistic” religions just reconfigure human interactions into another set of assumptions.

In my view this part…

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.

…is no less applicable to them.

Unless someone who subscribes to an Eastern philosophy would be willing to explore this with me pertaining to a particular context in which values do come into conflict.

Right, like abnormal behaviors are any less natural. If the human species is a part of nature then anything human beings are actually able to do is natural.

Relating to this thread, it is normal to believe in God. I just read that less than 20% of the world’s population are atheists. But since human beings are able to believe what they do one way or another there is nothing unnatural about it either way.

It’s just that some behaviors are then judged by one or another objectivist clique/claque as immoral. Why? Because they are said to be at odds with what the objectivists construe to be natural.

And yet as I noted on another thread, homosexuality exists in many species of animal. So it’s natural for them too. On the other hand, they aren’t judged by one of their own as behaving immorally.

In part because they don’t have access to…memes?

Yeah that’s why I said “to Man, that which would be appearing would necessarily not suffice to be God and therefore not be God.” I’m only intending to talk about appearance - hence my conclusion “God does not exist to humans”. Whether or not the reality is one way or another is irrelevant to Man, because their only access to it is through appearance and logic. And even applying logic to appearance, we necessarily cannot access God as he has to be defined in order to be God.

We can conceive and envision an object with 3 sides, 4 sides and so on to a point depending on how good we are at doing that - conceivably we could be better than we are even up to the point of 1433 and potentially even beyond, but no matter how good we got at trying to conceive of God, divinity is by definition supposed to be beyond our conception no matter how good it is. 1433-sided shapes and the like are still mundane things even if they are complex - you see the difference?

In the sense that Santa exists because we can talk about him, describe him and what he does, and he even has an affect on the world despite not having corporeal form, you might argue that God exists for the same reasons. However, you can define something that has internal contradictions, talk about it, describe it and what it does in illogical terms, and it could even have an affect on the world. Because of internal contradictions, we can know for sure by logic that it doesn’t actually exist, despite its existent definition and affects. In the same way you can define something that by logic cannot be conceivable to humans, it can have an affect on the world etc., but we can know for sure by logic that it doesn’t actually exist to us: it’s necessarily a non-issue to us, no matter how hard we could try and evolve, it would still necessarily be that way. That is the nature of God’s non-existence.

For comparison:

Related to the global population, the number of the unaffiliated decreases and will further on decrease, whereas the number of the muslims increase and will further on increase.

The natural that is also the rational, is the ability to be able to differentiate between normal and abnormal and from there delineate moral from immoral actions which liberals cannot fathom since to them all actions, behaviors, are natural/rational…and normal.