God is an Impossibility

Now, Prismatic 567, look what you have done. I believe that these charges are sufficient to condemn you for ever (ad infinitum). :evilfun:

James,

Have you never found yourself to be wrong about something after engaging in this kind of absolutist thinking ~~ 100% certainty? Your words, not mine. :mrgreen:
Seeing “no alternative” doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t one, does it, James?
There may not be one at this time within YOUR own mind but if you decide for yourself that there cannot be one, then one will not be found.

I myself am a skeptic so I am not sure I could even answer this but let us say that 1000 scientists share the same consensus about something. Would that be, objectively speaking, 100% certainty or proof for something?
Or would that simply be based on Time and what knowledge we have now ~~which does not necessarily point to 100% certainty.
More information and knowledge always comes to light about things which change the facts.

When we say “…when I think” does the word think here imply a conclusion or a continuing ongoing thought?

I was asked when I think that I am certain.

Never, not “after engaging”. I have made errors for not sufficiently thinking before responding. But when challenged, I either find my error right away, as they might have already, or it isn’t there. Ensuring that there is no alternative isn’t all that hard to do with a little practice. That is the main purpose for instigating challenge.

Depends on who is doing the seeing. :open_mouth:

Certainly not true if I properly resist believing that there cannot be one.

What people fail to see is that deciding that there must always be doubt, is itself a claim of doubtless certainty. I do not doubt that I can be certain. And I do doubt anything I believe until I have removed any alternative. There is no alternative to the fact that I can be certain (eg “I think therefore [certainly] I am”).

I only seem so confident because I built a mountain of immutable no-alternatives long ago - through endless doubting until there was nothing left to doubt, except for my doubt (the devil facing the Devil).

I agree that 1000 scientists are easily fooled - happens quite frequently.

Not really. Existence must always and forever mean “that which has affect” (not counting the mere redefining of the words involved). There is no alternative, although other potential meanings can be used also. More information cannot change that.

For me, there is no end to thinking, but there is an end to any one chain of thought, beyond which there is nothing more to think concerning that one. Every one thing has a beginning and an end. But there was never a beginning to all things nor shall there ever be an end to all things. Of that I am 100% certain … because there is no alternative. :sunglasses:

Again: How on earth would you go about demonstrating to others that this is true?

[u][b]For[/u][/b] all practical purposes, what does this mean?

How is it linked to God other [u][b]than[/u][/b] in an intellectual contraption?

Sure, we can speculate “philosophically” about an existence that consists of thoughts only. And then “in our heads” fit God into that.

But then that’s my point.

It doesn’t bring a God, the God any closer to, among other things, “the scientific method”. A way to manifest Him substantively.

How does understanding Kant bring us any closer to a God, the God? How did Kant bring a God, the God any further into existence? Other than “philosophically”?

God – technically – a scholastic synthesis between a priori and a posteriori thinking? Okay, where exactly is this God? If not in Kant’s head?

And how is this God implicated in the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave. Which of course is always my own focus here: How ought one to live?

With or without God.

Okay, implicate this assumption in a particular context. The murderer comes to your door and asks for the whereabouts of a woman he intends to kill. What does it mean here to state that “Kant demonstrated why ‘existence’ in never a predicate.”

And how, sans God, can it be demonstrated what the rational man or woman – as subject – is obligated to do. How is this not entirely predicated on one or another set of assumptions about the ontological/teleological relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world”.

Here of course I interject with my own “existential contraption”: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy. In a No God world.

And we don’t even seem to have a way to demonstrate definitively that all of this does not unfold only as it ever could have in a wholly determined universe.

Sure, if this entirely intellectual contraption works for you then from your point of view it is entirely true. But how would the implications of this be made relevant to the lives that we actually live from day to day?

That’s not how it works though. Out in the world that we interact in from day to day to day, one only has to believe in the existence of God. After all, the behaviors that we choose [which precipitate actual consequences] are predicated not on what can be demonstrated to exist but on what we have come to believe exists.

That’s [u][b]why[/u][/b] discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able [u][b]to[/u][/b] demonstrate it one way or the other.

Yes, I agree. But this doesn’t bring the atheists any closer to demonstrating the impossibility of an existing God. Other than in a “world of words” emanating from a set of speculative assumptions nestled “in their heads”.

Short of actually understanding why there is something instead of nothing – and why this something and not something else – we are all still in the same boat here. It’s just that some insist that, on the contrary, they have actually figured it all out.

Okay, I note, then demonstrate that to us. Why should we believe you? How would you go about – empirically, materially, phenomenally – confirming to us that your own set of assumptions reflect the optimal frame of mind here?

Your “proof” — a proof “with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility” — is [to me] just the flip side of James Saint defining – analyzing – the Real God into existence.

Clearly: In his head.

Or, rather, here and now, so it seems to me.

His sort of logic just seems to go around and around [internally] in circles.

  • He has access to the one true TOE: RM/AO
  • The Real God is embedded intellectually in this
  • Therefore he has access to the one true God

Whatever that means!

In other words, as long as the discussion stays up in the stratosphere of dueling definitions, he will pit his own “logic” against the “logic” of any and all comers here at ILP.

And, in certain respects, your own frame of mind here seems much the same.

To me.

Here and now.

Okay, let’s test this then:

Note a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict. How would you imagine those subscribing to Eastern philosopies reacting differently from those subscribing to Western philosophies?

Historically, what would constitute an “improvement” here? What would constitute “progress”?

How is this not instead [as I construe it] merely the embodiment [existentially] of particular sets of political prejudices rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts?

All of this may well be true. As an argument. But what transpires when this argument is made to actual flesh and blood human beings who find themselves in a particular context in which particular values have precipitated particular behaviors that have precipitated particular conflicts?

That is always where “I” aim to take these “general description” analyses.

The part where “here and now” I am entangled in my dilemma above. How are those who embrace an Eastern philosophy not entangled in it? Or considerably less entangled in it?

And then we can take the discussion to the part where what we choose to do on this side of the grave has actual consequences regarding our imagined fate on the other side of it.

Well, from my frame of mind it is more a question of how to interact with others socially, politically and economically, when you have managed to think yourself into the dilemma that I am in.

In flesh and blood human relationships there are actual consequences that can make our lives [from our own perspective] seem considerably better or worse. And sometimes it can revolve literally around matters of life and death.

To the extent that Eastern philosophies are able to mitigate that, all the better. But [for me] it doesn’t make the part about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away.

In other words:

Okay, but sooner or later these “spiritual practices” are going to collide with any number conflicting religious and moral and political agendas out in our modern world.

Again, if they succeed in minimizing the stress and anxiety these conflicts bring with them, that is clearly a victory.

But in trying to imagine a Buddhist reacting to, among other things, Trumpworld and the global economy, I begin to wonder just how far that can go.

This is another bankrupted and childish approach of yours and insulting your own intelligence and credibility.
Show me your justifications for each accusation you made.

Nah. You can’t fill an already-filled cup.

Prove to your cat that the Internet is real.

Generally ‘ontology’ in its widest sense is,
“Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.”
My take re ‘ontology’ is restricted to an existence that is independent of human conditions, e.g. Plato Forms, God and the likes.

The point is this, any one can think of any thing in thought but it is only real as a thought.
For example any thought of empirical possibility need to be justified with empirical evidence as objectively real.
If one cannot justify whatever is thought as real within empirical-rational reality, then it is false or illusory within that reality.

God is a thought rationalized by pure reason only [for psychological reasons] but to be real a theist must justify God’s existence within empirical-rational reality.

You tell me, what other reality than empirical-rational reality can any one justify a thing is really real? - dream world? moral world? a psychiatric world?

My point was, a thoroughly understanding of Kant will enable a person to realize philosophically, the idea of God is an illusion. It does not bring any one closer to a God.

Kant thesis is true knowledge arise from a posteriori experiences but knowledge is also tied to a priori of the collective experiences embedded in the DNA via the experiences of our past ancestors.

According to Kant, the idea of God arose when the theists [out of psychological factors -mine] untie whatever empirical basis to the thought to conclude the existence of a God which in fact is an illusion.

Note this [again];

As I had stated before, ALL humans are infected with a ‘virus’ that generate an existential crisis in the psyche. The virus in the majority are active while in others it is dormant.
Because the existential crisis generate terrible subliminal angst, a rationalized thought [emptied of the essential empirical base] of God is a very effective balms to soothe those angst. This belief in God thus provide real psychological security to theists to deal with a turbulent reality.

The fact that there are others who resort to non-theistic approaches [more efficient & not evil laden] to deal with that inherent viral existential crisis is indication theism is not the only way.

The ‘exist’ in ‘God exists’ is not a predicate.
With a predicate, then it is ‘God exists as a thought only’.

The contention re ‘the Murderer - lying’ scenario is a criticism of Kant as advocating an absolute rule ‘Lying is not permissible absolutely.’ The dilemma is if the man at the door sticks to the rule of no lying [telling the truth where the woman is hiding], then he is complicit to the murder of another human being which is a greater evil.

There is a misinterpretation of Kant’s Framework and System of Morality & Ethics in the above case.
Kant’s moral framework do include Absolute Moral Rules but they are only to act a guides and never to be enforced in practice. In ‘the Murderer - lying’ example, Kant was merely discussing the workings of an absolute moral rule, and he NEVER advocated such an absolute moral rule [morality] must be enforced in practice [ethics]. Kant agreed with Hume, an ‘OUGHT’ [morality] cannot be an "IS’ [ethics] but nevertheless both can work in complement to each other.

So in a real [in practical] ‘Murderer - lying’ scenario, the man at the door will have to ‘lie’ [a lesser evil] to counter a greater evil of assisting a murder to kill.

The above is a gist of how Kant’s Framework and System of Morality & Ethics works.
It is not easy to understand Kant’s work and 90% of the understanding of the above case within the philosophical community on this point is wrong.

Not too sure of this point.

I understand theism is a critical psychological necessity for the majority of people to soothe the inherent unavoidable angst arising from an existential crisis.
However I am also aware of theism-as-a-whole has malignant evil elements [in Abrahamic religions especially Islam] that pose a critical threat to the human species. [MAD is not a deterrent to Muslims].
Given the existential crisis is inherent and unadvoidable, humanity must strive to find alternative foolproof replacements for theism [with a malignant potential].
At present we already have non-theistic ideologies and practices which tackle the same existential crisis and are benign. All we need is to improve on them and repackage them without an specific brand.

Note we are in a philosophical forum and thus the need for intellectual integrity. It would be an insult to one’s intelligence to accept an illusion [proven] as really real, i.e. within an empirical rational reality.

One cannot present the idea of God as really real [empirical rational reality] without making the appropriate qualification that God is in fact illusory within an empirical rational reality .

As I had stated ‘God is an impossibility’ as proven [in thoughts via the highest possible rationality] is like a square-circle is an impossibility.
No rational person would doubt a square-circle is an impossibility because there is no deep psychological interest in such a point.

The original basis of theism is psychological, i.e. a desperate drive to soothe the arising angst pulsating from an existential angst.
This is real and has been recognized by Eastern spiritualities since thousands of years ago who has improved upon theistic methods [potentially malignant] to establish non-theistic methods which are benign.

It is this psychological desperation and insecurity that compel theists to defend their position as giving up theism for them at present without a replacement would be a psychological catastrophe. I understand this dilemma and I have never advocated replacing theism at the present or near-future but only later in the future when we have the capacity to do so without destabilizing the psychological state of theists.

I do not expect any one to believe me [100%] based on what I have posted.
What I have posted should be taken a clues and one need to do research on the subject.
However before one can proceed one must first understand the psychological compulsion that is driving one to theism. Using mindfulness one need to navigate to understand and reflect on what is really going on.

You would be wrong about that too. But at least you finally learned to use a dictionary.

Now if you could just accept what it says rather than your own version of the words.

An ontology is a set of concepts and their relations used to describe reality, an understanding of reality. There can be many true ontologies, just as there can be many languages. And there can never be a language without an underpinning ontology. Ontology is what gives language meaning: concept -to- word and how the puzzle fits together - the “map” to the “terrain” of reality.

Oh really?
So the back side of the Moon doesn’t exist unless you are watching it?

That’s good. So far, no one has.

This quote is supposedly attributed to Einstein [disputed];

The fact as I noted is the ultimate effectiveness of Buddhism [& other Eastern spiritualities] is too advanced for the masses at the present. This is why at present the Abrahamic religions are more popular, i.e. just believe and viola one is ‘saved’.

In addition to crude practices for the masses, Buddhism has a solid Framework and System of knowledge & practices to enable the believer to align optimally with reality san an illusory God and its negative baggage.

The effectiveness of genuine Buddhism can only be realized upon a high degree of continuous hardwork in the self-development of rewiring one’s brain for the purpose. This is why not many people are taking Buddhism seriously at present.
In your case, if you are above 55, genuine Buddhism is not going to be very effective on an older atrophized brain with low degree of plasticity.

As for the future generations, with the incremental trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technological in the advance knowledge of the neurosciences, genomics, etc. I am optimistic one can use these advancing knowledge to advance self-development programs like Buddhism [& other Eastern spiritualities] to optimize spirituality without malignant elements.

Btw, I am not a Buddhist per se and I am not insisting Buddhism is the only way. I believe in the future humanity must adopt the effective principles and practices from Buddhism and the likes and repackaging them for general use without reference to any specific religion or spirituality.

Prisimatic is right about one thing: ontology — the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations — ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God. He’s wrong about everything else, but he was right about that. It’s a mystery to me how he can say that and, in the very next line, say that it is restricted to an existence that is independent of human conditions.

I’m not seeing the truth of that. Can you explain a bit more detail? Why would a ontology necessarily lead to the existence of a “God”? Being an ontologist, I am a little curious.

Metaphysics is a very broad field, and metaphysicians attempt to answer questions about how the world is; ontology is a related sub-field that answers questions pertaining to what things exist in the world. An ontological narrative serves the same purpose as myth: it tells us how be in the world and how to relate to it. The prevailing modern myth is secular scientism – a metaphysics devoid of living First Principles. It’s rich in factual knowledge, but very, very poor in it ability to tell us how to live and relate.

Ships are safe in their harbors, but that’s not what they’re for. Once we knowingly set foot on a metaphysical path to discover the nature of Ultimate Reality, the reality of First Principles, there is the “danger” that we might want to find meaning in the quality of existence. And quality, being a matter of mind interpretation, represents an estimate of values and must, therefore, remain an experience of the individual. Interactions can be had between nonpersonal things, but not companionship. Companionship cannot be enjoyed unless both are persons. Only personalities can commune with each other. The concept of truth might possibly be entertained apart from personality, the concept of beauty may exist without personality, but the qualative concept of goodness is understandable only in relation to divine personality.

This is what Prismatic fears.

Well, that was very well put and in general would seem to be true. People do tend to either fall toward an anthropomorphic God or First Principle God. But I have to disagree that it is of necessity that values and quality of life cannot be understood through impersonal principles. Just because they didn’t, does mean that we can’t. My own Affectance Ontology bridges that gap, as has been brought up here in RM:AO - EM:DE.

And in here Where Does Meaning Come From?

And quite a few other threads.

Well, I guess I don’t understand it. The highlighted are my concerns about your philosophy. The first has to do with certainty. Certainty is an illusion. It imprisons us and closes the doors of perception to the unlimited possibilities before us. Linked to the human need to belong, which is driven the fundamental anxiety Prismatic talks about, it establishes rivalrous interests. Read the article I linked to at Psychology Today.

While true to some extent, my second concern is that it has the same as problem Prismatic’s idea of “evil”: it rests firmly on a foundation of thin air. There’s no there there. There’s nothing to facilitate fellowship except personal interests.

The last fails to distinguish between values and things that have value. Values (for finite beings) are indeed relative and subjective, but relative to what? Values are utterly meaningless without an Absolute or ideal against which they can be measured.

No doubt. It takes considerably more than a superficial revue to understand such things, whether they be worth while or not.

Emm… certain about that, are you? Perhaps a presumptuous illusion?

That is the second time I have noted you claim a falsehood based upon your prediction of how people would handle the thought; “If it leads to people behaving the foolish way that I think they will, then it must be a false theory.

That one, I will have to completely disagree with and ask for your evidence.

Actually, I explicitly pointed out both of those concerns and their relation to each other as well as to the make of the universe itself.

As is often the case, you appear to be guilty of your own accusations; you are claiming certainty that something can’t be done and even the certainty that one can’t be certain of anything such as to maintain the status quo “illusion”.

But this isn’t the thread to bandy this topic.

And the point being that the ontology did not lead to claims about a “God” character. Einstein’s General Relativity is also an ontology, involving the warping of spacetime and makes no mention of God, nor does the Quantum Physics ontology of the Standard Model.

Well, either I don’t understand what you’re saying, or I’m seeing something you are not. (Beware of philosophy’s hidden implications.)

As is often the case, you appear to be guilty of your own accusations: you, too, are claiming certainty. :angry-argument: Com’on, let’s not be childish about it. Each of us is confident in what we believe. So what? I don’t think either one of us do what so many others here do, which is to sit back and wait for truth to come to us in the form of evidence.

You’re conflating physics and metaphysics.