iambiguous wrote:Prismatic567 wrote: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.
Again: How on earth would you go about demonstrating to others that this is true?
For all practical purposes, what does this mean?
How is it linked to God other
than 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.
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?
Prismatic567 wrote: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.
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"?
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.
God -- technically -- a scholastic synthesis between a priori and a posteriori thinking? Okay, where exactly is this God? If not in Kant's head?
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];
Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions [God, Soul, Whole-Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. -B397
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.
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.
Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate.
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."
The 'exist' in 'God exists' is not a predicate.
With a predicate, then it is 'God exists as
a thought only'.
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".
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.
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.
Not too sure of this point.
Prismatic567 wrote: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.
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?
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.
Prismatic567 wrote:One has to prove God exists first before deciding whether God is the Creator of the Universe.
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
why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able
to demonstrate it one way or the other.
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 .
Prismatic567 wrote: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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.