God is an Impossibility

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

Thank you.

Prismatic 567.

Again:

Considering all the talk about Kant and his philosophy, it would be easy for a casual observer to erroneously conclude that he was an atheist. He was not.

Prismatic simply misuses Kant - for particular reasons.

It is not easy to explain Kant in a few paragraphs and a few quotes.
You have to spent a reasonable amount of time to read and research Kant before you can understand [not necessary agree] Kant’s philosophy.

Two of his relevant works on this point are;

  1. The Critique of Pure Reason
  2. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science

In the Prolegomena Kant highlighted 3 Main Transcendental Problems related to Synthetic a priori judgments, i.e.;

1.0 The main transcendental problem.
1.1 How is pure mathematics possible?
1.2 How is pure natural science possible?
1.3 How is metaphysics in general possible?

Kant accept there is no issue with the possibility of Pure Mathematics and Pure Natural Science because they are embedded with intuition and a priori empirical elements that are linked to the empirical.

However, Is metaphysics to be possible? Kant do not accept it is possible within an empirical-rational reality because it contain no empirical-based elements, note the quote re B297 above.
However, Kant accept metaphysics can be ‘possible’ within pure thoughts and morality and this has to be confined within the bounds of Pure Reason only.

My point is DNA wise all humans has an inherent drive towards the continual improvement of morality.
The laws re banning of slavery by all recognized Nations is evidence to prove this trend of continual improvement in morality within humanity.

Obviously despite the laws on slavery by every Nation on Earth, there will always be people who will attempt to practice slavery illegally.
It is the same, despite Law of murder, there will still be murders going on.

The fact there are now Laws banning slavery as compared to 100 or 200, >1000 years ago is a reflection of improvement of Morality in action. Note Laws do not equate directly with Morality but they merely reflect the improving state of morality within humanity.

What will really denote real progress in Morality is when every human individual engages and aligns with his/her natural improving moral drive and naturally has the moral attitude that slavery is morally wrong. In this case we do have to rely on Laws but merely on the personal moral conscience of the individual.
At present such a state is seemingly an ideal, but it is possible for humanity to achieve such a state as done in instituting laws to ban slavery. This can be done more efficiently based on dynamic non-thestic approaches. Theistic base morals are immutable and too rigid to move with changing times.

Can the banning of slavery be a moral absolute?
I don’t agree with the absolutely-absolute, but human can rely on reason & rationality, philosophy & wisdom based on core human principles to derive the best pragmatic moral absolutes. Note for example the Golden Rule which is very rational and Confucius [551 BC – 479 BC] came out with it before any “God” [illusory] stated in the New Testament.
Slavery is argued based on the principle of basic human dignity where no human shall be owned by another.

In general, the practice of Morality and Ethics will be most efficient when managed objectively [not Thinkdr’s proposals of quantifying human values] within a Framework and Systems of Morality & Ethics. Humanity need to strive toward such an objective.

It seem to be a very common response, whenever I mentioned ‘theistic religion and evil’, then someone will definitely question “what about” secular “isms,” political evil, Nazism, Stalin, etc.

All evils must be addressed and resolved.
I have a separate project to deal with evil in general encompassing ALL evils.
The gold standard of Problem Solving is to break down the whole problem into smaller manageable units.
Since this section is ‘Religion and Spirituality’ to topic I have to confine to religious related evils and not secular-based evils, e.g. politics, drugs, social, gangs, guns, etc.

In the past and even now, “might is right” but I believe the inherent drive towards incremental and greater morality will prevail based on its evident trend of improvements over the last 200 years in terms of a range of human values.

Does that mean you are in favor of eugenics?

Yes, and the banning of slavery was, directly or indirectly, pushed ahead by religion-based values.

Here’s where the problem of evil raises its ugly head for non-theists: there’s no such thing as objective morals and ethics where there is no supreme Good.

Isn’t that reductionism? Was Einstein wrong to say, “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”?

Yes, and it is equally as common to see it dismissed.

I shouldn’t say so as all religion is and permits slavery

the opposite
supreme standard are the root of all evil = moral looseness before oneself

cause well hey we aint perfect right?
#-o

slippery trappery. lke chess against autist.

He was being coquettish

Trump accomplished reality in politics. Some do that most suck ad sucking inside politics is bad news.

Eugenics is generally related to superiority in terms of overall physical, mental and health.
Point is a person who is deficient in overall physical, mental and health can still have very high moral intelligence and qualities.
So my proposals re continual improvement of morality is not related to eugenics per se.

Note Fixed Cross’ point on this.
The holy texts of condoning of slavery as in the Quran is immutable. There is no way, Muslims as believers can go against Allah’s word to ban slavery. If they do, they will go to Hell.

There is no such thing as absolute objective moral rules floating out there to be enforced upon humans. But there are pragmatic absolutes which are objective.
I have argued ‘objectivity’ is based on intersubjective consensus.
viewtopic.php?p=2686574#p2686574
The golden rule with the consensus of ‘all’ humans is objective.
The banning of slavery as a law is objective.
There is no need for supreme Good, presumably for you is the Supreme God.
What is the point of proposing a Supreme God [illusory and impossible] that is supposed to be supreme Good which condone slavery and inspire all sorts of evil in a critical SOME theists.

You are way off point on this.

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.
But one is merely insulting one’s intelligence when dismissing [wave off] another’s hypothesis without proper arguments. The underlying reason for simply waving off another arguments is psychological in a subliminal detection of an existential threat.

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

No, you won’t. You like to cite psychology to support your position, but here’s an article in Psychology Today that refutes your claim, calling it a “scapegoat for deeper psychological problems.” The “new atheists” have already been thoroughly thrashed in regards to this claim. But I doubt you will accept that there is reason to dismiss your claim.

But it’s okay for you. That’s quite a double standard you have there!

So, that’s why you did it!