God is an Impossibility

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!

“New atheist” Where? Links?

I have done my own research into Islam [spent >3 years researching Quran and Islam] and found proofs that the Quran is inherently evil where Allah inspires Muslims to commit evil [as defined] on non-Muslims.

Where?

So, that’s why you did it!
[/quote]
Where?

You are supporting my point? - God is ultimately an absolutely perfect God.

I edited my last post. that one link should be enough (but I doubt it will).

So?

I am certain [re religion and evil] the views from this blog
Psychology Today
is based on ignorance of the words of Allah in the Quran.

There are evils acts by Muslims which has nothing to do with Islam, e.g. if a Muslim kill another in a fight for some domestic reasons, etc.
But, for all evils and violence committed by Islamist fundamentalists accompanied by shout of Allahu Akbar there are many layers of causes, but the ultimate root cause is traced to the verses of the Quran and the religion of Islam.

Here is from the horses mouth from the extremist why they kill non-believers;
mirror.co.uk/news/world-news … ns-8533563

1. Because you are disbelievers
“We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices.”

It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

“The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”

If one has done sufficient research into the Quran and ethos of Islam, one will definitely understand the truth of the above why it is inherent within Islam for Muslims to hate and kill non-believers.

So the views of the link you referenced, i.e.
psychologytoday.com/blog/ou … od-or-evil
is off target.
What is listed as the reasons on why jihadists kill non-believers is merely secondary if any, but the main reason is directly because of the religion and its ideology. see the link from the daily mirror.

Note there are other religionists who adopt a religion for the same reasons as claimed but these religionists [e.g. Buddhist, Jainists, Hindus, Toaists] do not commit violence in the name of their God, founder or are inspired by the commands in their holy texts.

Therefore my claim stands, there is a direct correlation between religion and evils as proven with Islam.

Note:
psychologytoday.com/blog/ou … od-or-evil
“I believe that religion is being used as a scapegoat for deeper psychological problems.”

There is some truth to the above, but the link is between God and deeper psychological problems, not evil.

Deeper psychological problems drive
a person to believe in God.
That God is the basis of a religion.
That particular God deliver evil commands for its followers to kill non-believers.

Deeper psychological problems drive a person to believe in God within an religion.
But not all theistic religions are evil.
So as you can see the link is between the religion and evil.
It is the specific religion that inspire evil in its followers [SOME].

As I have stated multiple times, you do not understand what the word “perfect” means, thus your claim is lacking meaning.

But since you don’t understand what “Reality” means either, such as to propose multiple “realities”, there isn’t much point arguing about your absolute statements, as they could only be relevant to which ever reality happens to conform to them, thus not really absolute.

Your concepts are all conflated and confused, so of course your effort to deduce anything is going to be merely whatever you prefer the conclusion to become, dominated by wishful thinking rather than rational thinking (the exact thing that you accuse religious people of doing).

So I merely pointed out that contrary to your prior claim, “God” does in fact refer to Truth, Logic, Reality for those far more educated than you on the subject. But since you have no understanding of those terms either, I am not interested in continuing to argue with you over it amidst such excessive ignorance of the language and its concepts.

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

As I had stated your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.
I have explained and brushed off all the counters you have presented.
If there is anything outstanding I will not leave it unattended as that will post doubts on my thesis.

Gyahd …

“I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about.” - 13 year old boy.

:icon-rolleyes:

:laughing:

=D>

“I inhaled and exhaled once, so I am a medical specialist for breath control.”

That is also a typical example for your so-called “arguments”. There is nothing behind it. It is all surface. It is more appearance than substance. It is more illusion than reality. It is more the opposite of what is said. “I am a progressive human being, so I am a World Citizen”; “I am a World Citizen, so I am a progressive human being”; “…”; “I read once the translation of the titles of the chapters of Kant’s books, so I know Kant’s philosophy”; “I was once a pantheist Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about”; “…”; and so on and so forth. These are no arguments. And especially not when it comes to the topic of this thread. You are always derailing your own threads.

Those “modern” guys who say “religion is opium for the people” want to give them their religion, a modern religion (examples: “liberalism”, “egalitarianism”/“communism”, “fascism”, “humanitarianism”/“globalism”), which has always to do with the elimination of the old religion and with antitheism (with slogans like “religion is opium for the people”, “God is an impossibility” …). The main problem ist that the new, the “modern” religion is even worse than the old one.

Do not buy the modern opium!

Told ya! :music-deathmetal: