God is an Impossibility

Magic word: “EQUALity”!

[tab]Thus: No quality ![/tab]

There are many aspect of sexuality, i.e. being sexual.
To use the Bell Curve we need to state the specific criteria to be used.

Say we refer to sexuality in reference to those between living human beings. As observed within animals and humans there are various sexual behaviors, i.e. the various degrees of heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality. Based various evidences [small samples] and applying the model of the Bell Curve we can predict there will be a percentile of homosexuals of various degrees at one extreme of the curve.
From the smaller samples we can estimate this to about say 10%. i.e. appx 0.7 billion of humans are homosexuals. [Note these are not actual numbers but appx.] What is critical is the differences in ratios.

Interpretation:
What is interesting is, even if say Iran claim there are no [or concede it 0.1%] homosexuals in their country, base on the Bell Curve we can the likelihood is 10% of Iranian are homosexuals, albeit they may not declare themselves to be.

Based the Bell Curve we can predict there are 10% or 0.7 billion of homosexuals within humanity. This 10% is not a threat to humanity in term of it main purpose i.e. producing the next generation. So I don’t see homosexuality as a threat and a problem.
Theists view it as a threat purely based on emotional and psychological grounds, and an illusory God which is an impossibility in the first place.

We can use the Bell Curve to analyze sexuality in terms of various perversions. The critical issue is to question them morally and whether they are a threat to humanity’s main 'purpose.

Note you cannot generalize “liberalism.” Personally I am not into “liberalism” or any political faction.
Note every human behavior is naturally human. The question is whether are they moral or not and whether they are a threat to humanity.
Relatively more people are killed and violated by theists than by homosexuals.
Why theists condemn homosexuals is purely due to the dogma within immutable holy texts which is grounded on an illusory God.
I don’t see homosexuality as a problem but those sexual acts we recognized in general as perversion, e.g. bestiality, torture, and the likes should not be condoned.

Ontology of ‘Existence’.
Note Kant prove ‘ontology’ is not a possibility.
In addition Kant also demonstrated ‘existence’ is not a predicate.
Existence has to be accompanied by a qualification, i.e. exist as what?
e.g. God exists asserts nothing of substance at all.
It is that “what” that need to be justified within an empirical-rational reality.

Btw, the only ultimate basis a theist can claim God exists is via faith, very strong faith. How can you use the basis of faith as an irresistible force of intellectual contraption?

I have proven God is an Impossibility in accordance to some credible framework and at the same time demonstrate why theists believe in a God is due psychological grounds driven by an existential crisis [see below]. There are lots of research done in this area and the focus should be in this area rather than banging on an a God which is proven to be illusory.

If you recognized the psychological contraption then you should focus on the issue psychologically.
So you need to question, why am I so fixated on a God which is illusory from the psychological basis.
Note the non-theistic spiritualities [e.g. Buddhism] recognize the inherent existential crisis from the psychological perspective and dealt with its associated problem psychologically and spiritually.
All human beings are infected with the inherent existential crisis, theists cling to an illusory God, non-theistic spiritualities deal with it psychologically, many non-theists resort to drugs and opioids to deal with the associated psychological pains.

At present where did all the Nations get the rules and agree to ban all slavery when slavery is not absolutely banned by God in the holy books?

As I had stated, the drive [power] for morality is inherent in all humans and humans are progressing steadily toward higher Moral Intelligence [MQ].
What humanity need is to expedite the Framework and System of Morality & Ethics [like what Kant* proposed] and expedite on the process. Then humanity will established [via continuous improvement] shared “absolute” moral rules for guidance [not enforcement].

• not the rigid deontic rules as misinterpreted by most].

You are conflating the Law [legislature] and what is being practiced [judiciary].

At present the banning of slavery is accepted as a standard Law in all countries without compromise. Show me a country where the laws on slavery state and allow slavery [normally defined] to be practiced with compromise?
However there will be people who practice slavery illegally and try to justify in various ways.
Because the law on the banning of slavery is ‘absolute’ the law will eventually catch up with the guilty when the average Moral Intelligence is increased expeditiously.
So the task for humanity is to increase the average Moral Intelligence expeditiously.

I am not too sure of your point re Dasein and “I”.

My point is the non-theistic spiritualities of the East recognized there is an existential crisis that led theists to believe in an illusory God and that belief is due to psychological factors.
So they focus on the real human psychological factors rather than on an illusory God to modulate the same existential crisis.

The non-theistic spiritualities of the East also noted a belief in a God lead to immutable holy books containing evil laden elements that inspire their evil prone theists to commit terrible terrors, violence and evils on non-believers and others.
So the non-theistic spiritualities of the East ensure their guidance and texts do not include any evil laden elements that will inspire their evil prone believers to commit evils in the name of the religion or founder.

You will note my proof of ‘God is an Impossibility’ intends to link to the terrible terrors, violence and the full range of evils committed by evil prone believers who are inspired by the evil laden elements in the immutable holy books of theists who believe their God is real with the strongest possibility.

Now my proof ‘God is an Impossibility’ will cut off the grounds of theism and thus no more grounds for theists to commit the terrible evils.

It would appear [advise if otherwise] what is natural and rational to you is based on what God in the immutable book said so?
God killed all homosexuals with rain of stones, so homosexuality must be unnatural, irrational and evil, thus abnormal and immoral.

Personally I do not agree with homosexuality especially same sex marriage, but rationally it should be tolerated as it posed no danger to the main purpose of the human species in contrast to theism [especially Islam] which has the potential to exterminate the human species.

Start here: youtu.be/oYdcvRe7ox8

Homosexuality seems quite natural throughout much of the animal kingdom.

Sure, if you start with the assumption that the one and the only rational sexual behavior is between a man and a woman in order to reproduce, you can then self-righteously connect the dots to an objectivist/conservative political agenda that argues, "therefore faggotry is evil ".

And, indeed, you can insist that “epistemologically” there is only one politically correct manner in which to distinguish “normal” from “natural” behavior: the way that you do.

But, again, just as it pertains to a belief in God, my interest here revolves more around the extent to which your own political narrative reflects a rigorous intellectual investigation into homosexuality more or less than it reflects the actual sequence of experiences/relationships in your lived life that predisposed you to embrace one rather than another set of prejudices.

Me, I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. If I had a dollar for every time I used the word “faggot” as a kid, I’d be swimming in Benjamins.

That’s simply how these things work. Folks go in many different political directions here because their lives go in many different directions.

And while there are any number of pro and con arguments to be made regarding such questions as, “is sexual orientation determined at birth?” – borngay.procon.org/view.resourc … eID=000005 – that’s the part where conflicting goods come into existence. And in any particular historical and cultural context. The part about genes and the part about memes.

But to try to reduce the enormous complexity of human sexual interactions throughout history down to “reproduction” is nothing short of preposterous.

And I’ll bet you know that from your own life. Or are you swimming in offspring?

Sex is often extremely pleasurable, children or no children. It is a way to reinforce emotional bonds as well. And it is clearly embedded in the evolution of political economy among our own species.

But, sure, if you can demonstrate to us that your own value judgment here is not just an “existential contraption” rooted in the life that you lived, by all means, give it a shot.

Though I suspect that, as with all objectivists of your ilk, what counts here [psychologically] is less who is right and more that right and wrong itself can be determined. And this must be true because you already have.

Same with God. For many, the thing they can tolerate least is the idea that we are simply unable to determine [here and now] if a God, the God does in fact exist. So, it becomes either “God!” or “No God!”.

After all, how else are they going to be able to make that crucial distinction between “one of us” and “one of them”?

Fact is that there are several cultures. In certain cultures it is not allowed to be homosexual, in ceratin other cultures it is allowed to be homosexual.

So, if you are saying that homosexuality is somehow “unnatural” or “abnormal”, then you are in conflict with those certain cultures in which homsexuality is allowed.
So, if you are saying that homosexuality is somehow “natural” or “normal”, then you are in conflict with those certain cultures in which homsexuality is not allowed.

Currently, there is merely one culture in which homosexuality is not allowed. I am speaking of the so-called “islamic” culture (Prismatic’s enemy? ).

Was there a deliberate reason for putting ity in lower case or was it just random?

Are you actually perceiving that there is no quality within equality?

It was meant as a tendency. If, for example, A equals B, then there is no quantitative difference between them, so: A = B then. I believe that in real life equality has the tendency to make also a qualitative difference indifferent, thus equal, so that there is at last a qualitative indifference. In other words: if you have no quantitative difference, then you have to expect that you will - sooner or later - have no qualitative difference either.

I didn’t read all the posts following the original because the premise is so absurd I didn’t think it was necessary.

It matters little what idea of the Father you entertain so long as you are acquainted with the ideal of His infinite and eternal nature. Clearly, the author of the OP has no idea what an infinite and eternal nature entails. Having no further (non-)argument, the author resorts to a pseudo psychological explanation why people believe, ignores the fact that his (or her) speaking about evil put him/her in a very precarious philosophical position, and, although correctly saying that ‘existence’ is not a predicate, fails to recognize it’s not meant to be – it’s not meant to say anything about God primarily because God has no properties and, secondly, because nothing can be said except analogically.

Homosexuality is also a taboo within Christianity as expressed in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Islam merely plagiarized this point from the Bible and imbue greater hatred for homosexuality to the extent homosexuals are thrown off building as a punishments in the present.

Nope I am not an “enemy” of Islamic culture.
The term “enemy” invoke emotions which can lead to fatality.
Rather, I am very critical of the evils inherent in Islam [part not whole of] and suggest solutions to deal with this evilness.

I understand your impulsive response [its subliminal desperate psychology] to put down my argument with merely brushing it off with superficial negating statements.

What don’t you demonstrate why the ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ nature are not groundless. There are many and one such counter against the ideal is that of Plato’s Universals and Forms. Note the idea of God is the most extreme of ideal. Point is you do not have any idea of what ‘ideas’ are in the philosophical sense.

As for evil, I am referring to empirical evil acts out of evilness and not to ontological/metaphysical evil existing independently and lurking around with evilness. Note my definition of ‘evil’ in the other thread.

‘Analogically’ is merely speculation unless one can bring on empirical evidences to justify [rationalize] whatever is claimed to exist empirically-rationally.

Brushing off the argument with baseless [crude] statements may soothe your psychological angst [pain] but the fact is ‘God is an Impossibility’ as argued in the OP and supported by various explanations in the posts that follow.

Note,

1. ‘God is a possibility’ = psychological comfort/security + terrible evil acts by SOME theists

2. ‘God is an impossibility’ = zero terrible theistically-inspired-evil-acts* by SOME theists.

Where we have alternatives to provide the same psychological comfort/security, “God is an Impossibility” [as proven] is the more rational and wiser option.

• there will still be other non-theistic evil acts, they must be dealt with but not in this theistic specific forum

My bad. I thought this was a philosophy forum. As such, I didn’t think pseudo psychology had a role.

According to Wiki, in philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. That can’t be what I mean because God is not an object that can be represented or construed as a mental image. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present themselves as mental images. This means that a philosophical idea practically speaks on things that requires no experiment and is commonly based on a metaphysical concept like a supreme good or the infinite and eternal nature of God.

Well, it’s always fun to learn new oxymorons like “empirical evil.”

Now, that’s just plain silly. If one could bring to bear empirical evidences to justify whatever is claimed, analogy wouldn’t be necessary.

Sorry. I’m going to end this. You’re too overbearing and irrational.

What does it mean empirically to prove that “ontology”/ontology is not a possibility? How on earth would Kant go about demonstrating what that means beyond asking others to accept the definition and the meaning that he gave to the words in his argument/analysis itself?

How, in this respect, is Kant really any different from the rest of us here?

It is argued by some that God exists as the Creator — the entity [first cause] responsible for the existence of Existence.

Whatever that means. But that’s the point. In a world of words it means whatever one wishes to assert that it does. As long as you are not actually obligated to produce this God substantively.

On the other hand, how do the atheists go about demonstrating that a God, the God is not the Creator…the ontological/teleological font upon which mere mortals can fall back when they are unable to demonstrate any of this.

From my frame of mind we are all in the same boat here. We all embody [from the cradle to the grave] that enormous gap between what we think we know about these things at any particular “here and know” juncture, and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that we do to others.

Kant had his chance, right?

But the same can be said of the atheist’s argument regarding [among other things] the impossibility of God’s existence. Beyond arguing that it seems more reasonable for those who claim the existence of something to demonstrate that this is so, the atheist is still left with no solid, irrefutable empirical evidence that a God, the God does not exist.

All I am noting here is that, either way, one or the other frame of mind may well be correct. It has just not been so demonstrated to me. In other words, to my very own entirely individual and unique existential “I”.

And that is what the objectivists are most wary of in my opinion. That this is also applicable to them.

But I will always be the first here to flat out admit that I may well be wrong.

But, right or wrong, how would one actually go about demonstrating it?

You claim that you have…

And, sure, to the extent that you embrace this “general description” as proof, it is proof. To you.

To me however it in no way compellingly demonstrates how in the staggering vastness of “all there is” you have proven that God is an impossibility. After all, how “on earth” could any mere mortal possibly know something like this?!

From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is no less a psychological contraption. Unless of course you are able to convince me that it is essentially true. Yet even than that wouldn’t necessarily make it so.

We are all stuck in the same boat here: Grappling to connect the dots between an infinitesimal speck of existence – “I” – and the mind-boggling extent of Existence itself.

Again, I largely share your own assumptions about God but…

But that would require closing the gap between “I” as a psychological contraption and an understanding of human psychology in the context of “all there is”.

What interest me most about Buddhism [and other Eastern narratives] is really no different from what interest me most about Christianity [and other Western narratives]: how to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and what we imagine our fate to be on the other side of the grave. As that relates to whatever we conclude when confronted with the question, “how ought one to live?”

In particular when one has come to believe that mere mortals inhabit an essentially absurd and meaningless world that seems to culminate in oblivion for all of eternity.

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above in regard to a particular existential context in which value judgments come into conflict. Including the judgment that revolves around establishing what value judgments are and how we come to acquire them historically, culturally and experientially.

[note: if anyone knows of any other folks who do embrace one or another “Eastern philosophy”, by all means, bring them into the discussion. Either on this thread or on my own: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929 ]

Marx would argue that slavery was impaled on capitalism. Historically, organically, the market political economy prefers the “wage slave”. The labor of the working class is exploited but when you don’t “own” folks, they are on their own for everything else. But, sure, it can be argued the other way around: that out of the Enlightenment came political ideals. And that out of these ideals came such beliefs as the “natural rights of man”. White men then, and then later men of color. And then women.

But slavery still exists in the world today: cnn.com/2017/09/19/world/glo … index.html

And there are any number of folks no doubt who could rationalize it again if economic conditions made it profitable.

My point is that sans God it is still largely an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That there does not appear to be a way in which to establish philosophically [logically/ethically] that slavery is necessarily/inherently wrong.

After all, sociopaths and nihilists are able to justify any and all human interactions that they construe to be in their own best interests.

Only a God is able to embody both the omniscience and the omnipotence that renders such things as slavery sins. With sins there is never any question of not getting caught, of not being punished. That’s why the Gods are invented in the first place!!

In my view, you still cling to the illusion [if it is an illusion] that moral “progress” can be defined and then established essentially by mere mortals in a Godless universe. I, on the other hand, as a moral nihilist, construe these things more as existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And that is precisely why I ask folks [religious or not] to bring their own moral agendas “down to earth”; “out into the world” of actual human social, political and economic conflicts; conflicts we can probe and discuss given the differing sets of assumptions we bring into play here.

Thus you bring one set of assumptions regarding slavery above and I bring another. Now how would philosophers/epistemologists/logicians/ethicists/scientists/theologians/naturalists etc., go about establishing the most or the only rational assessment.

It basically revolves around distinguishing between those things that can be established as true objectively for all of us…

Catholicism is a Christian religious denomination here on planet earth.

…and those things which many believe in their head to be true – the God of Catholicism does in fact exist – but are unable to demonstrate [at least to me] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

After all, whether in reference to God or to Santa Claus or to unicorns, there is what we claim to know is true and there is what we can demonstrate to others is in fact true.

And this is applicable to both Western and Eastern narratives/agendas.

And yet there have been any number of secular narratives – ideologies, political dogmas, isms etc. – that have inflicted just as much human pain and suffering over the course of human history. The 20th century in particular.

For me [God or No God], human interactions will always revolve around one or another combination of 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

From my frame of mind, the worst of all possible worlds is reflected in the first two. But I also clearly recognize that “here and now” this is no less an “existential contraption”. A value judgment that I have come to embody over the course of my own lived life.

The legend of “Sodom and Gomarrah” is expressed in the Old Testament, thus a taboo within the Jewish religion.

Interesting post, but the “QED” doesn’t follow. It is true that anything conceived by a human as God is not God (few theists would disagree), but following that with “God does not exist to humans” is a failure to understand religion’s object of worship. (Note: the word “object” is not used to designate an object or entity of any kind, but something much more, something beyond any such designation.)

Kant did not say god is an impossibility, Arminius , my friend,
because he did not rule out the a-priori synthetic which Marxists did rule out. For them an a- posterior synthetic was the only acceptable basis , and as such made anything else immaterial.

Hope You are doing fine, always carefully reading Your worthwhile and valuable comments.

Note I did not link ontology with the empirical at all. Ontology is beyond empirical possibility.
‘Ontology’ is restricted to pure reason, i.e. purely thoughts only.

It is advised to understand Kant thoroughly one need at least 3 years full time or 5 years part time reading and research on Kant’s philosophy. I have done the above.
So it is not easy to explain in few sentences to you how Kant demonstrated 'ontology is an impossibility.
Here is a clue to my point;

As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why ‘existence’ in never a predicate.

The idea of Ontology ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God.
I have proven the Ontological God is an impossibility.
Thus ‘ontology’ is as a philosophical idea is an impossibility, i.e. impossible to prove any ontological essence can be real within an empirical-rational reality.

One has to prove God exists first before deciding whether God is the Creator of the Universe.

You are entangled with too much conflation here.

Theists claim their God is real to the extent of being empirically-rationally real, e.g. listening to their prayers and answering them. On this basis, theists must prove their God is real via an empirical-rational basis. But theists cannot do that except by FAITH which is not empirically based.

OTOH. my argument ‘God is an impossibility’ is based purely on reason and logic, i.e. thoughts only and not empirical at all.
Since my argument is merely by thoughts, reason and logic alone, there is no need for me to bring empirical evidence at all.
When I have proven ‘God is an impossibility’ it meant the question of God is a non-starter, i.e. the question of whether God exists or not need not have to raise at all. It is like there is no basis to try to prove whether a Round-square exists or not.

Since God is an Impossibility, there is no question of whether God exists or not.

Where theists are inclined to believe God exists as real, they are doing it based on pure faith, i.e. beliefs based not on empirical-rational justifications.

IF one insists God is real, then they need to bring the empirical evidence and justifications.

The only justified basis for ‘God exists’ is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.

I have proven with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility. If one insist otherwise, bring the empirical evidence to justify it empirically-rationally.

The only justification for God to “exists” is purely psychological, here is my point again,

The only justified basis for ‘God exists’ is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.

nb: Will deal with the other points in another post.

The Eastern spiritualities and philosophies has gone into great depths on this issue since thousands of years ago and had continuously improve on them to the present.
The first thing is one need to understand the natural inclination to the idea “I” and “All there is” are ultimately illusory. Note Kant’s there is no “I-in-itself” “Universe-in-itself” which the same with the non-theistic principles of Buddhism and the likes.

It is when one clings [naturally driven] to the “I” and “All there is” or “whatever there is” that a terrible angst is generated that drive one’s to seek psychological security and the easy solution is the idea of a God [the all powerful] as a panacea.

The question is how to deal with this angst without clinging to anything. This is how Buddhism came up with the concept of ‘nothingness’ ‘emptiness’ ‘dependent origination’ where there is no dualistic reality but rather the focus is on emergence of reality with the self [as non-self] in engagement with the flow.

Eastern philosophies often come up with seemingly parodoxical ideas, e.g.
‘Action without Action’
‘Fighting without fighting’
They are not contradictions but they have to be viewed in different senses alternating within different time in nano-seconds.

Besides theories based on real collective experiences, Buddhism and the likes focus critically to change the brain and mind via effective spiritual practices. The effectiveness of such practices is evident from the tons of research done on this subject.

The limitation is whilst these Eastern practices has benefits the more effective ones are limited to a small percentage of practitioners. So the solution is to make these philosophies and practices more accessible and practical for the masses without the religious attachments. I am optimistic this can be done with the potential of the exponential expansion of knowledge and information technology.

Kant did not rule out the a-priori synthetic but he differentiated whether the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the following;

1. Empirical embedded and possible
2. Non-empirical groundings

Where the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the emprical, e.g. Science or Mathematics, then it is an empirical possibility.

Where the a-priori synthetic is grounded on the non-emprical, then it is an illusion.
An illusion is an impossibility to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
The idea of a God is a-priori synthetic based on pure thoughts and reason, which is non-empirical, thus an illusion, therefore God is an impossibility.

With reference to the idea of God as an inevitable illusion, Kant wrote;

Prismatic, Your Kant quote did not differentiate between thw different types of a priori synthetic therefore it’s not a defense
to the argument , he simply states that. A non empirical conclusion is illusionary. That does not include thw pure categories of understanding . There are no different a priori types , only ones which are a priori and not a posteriori. A posterior types of propositions are derived from experience , a priori judgements are not.

He never said a priori jusgements are objective. He only said that assigning objectivity to non experiential , or a posterior. Judgements are illusionary. That is a different type of judgement, however I can see how his terminology in that quote may lead to a confusion