God is an Impossibility

Indeed, that is precisely where you always insist on taking these discussions/debates: inside your head.

The “bottom line”.

You think this, you think that. And you think one thing rather than another because you have concocted this analysis of God which seems entirely predicated [tautologically] on the definition and the meaning that you assign the words in the analysis.

That way you can engage only in exchanges with those who assign a different, conflicting definition and meaning to the words used in their own intellectual contraptions.

Just as Christians will insist that 1] the Bible must be true because it is the word of God, and that 2] it must be the word of God because it is in the Bible, you intertwine the Real God and RM/AO in the assumption that they must be true because by definition you tell us that they are.

Okay, I challenge you [or anyone here] to demonstrate that they are in fact true as they pertain to that which is of most interest to me: How ought one to live?

And, given the nature of this thread, how the answer to this question intertwines the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side of it given the assumption we make about God or No God.

Morally, for example, or politically. Or, for others, “naturally”.

We can do that on this thread, or take the exchange here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929&start=1200

Since we were talking about believing what Science says … “science experiments” … concerning anything they have said that also you believe. And you can be assured that Prism hasn’t either. You believe what they say for the exact same reason so many people believed in Jesus in his day - faith in the them. And Science cannot prove or disprove God.

I heard that there was a couple of hundred on the shore, but either way you see my point, I’m sure.

Why would you think they have anything to do with science or what scientists believe? Scientists have probably never heard those questions either. They are serious philosophical questions concerning the nature of existence, ontology. Scientists are technicians, not philosophers.

It is a hypothetical. It isn’t asking what does or doesn’t exist. It is asking if there is anything that you believe does not exist, yet you also believe has affect. And you gave the standard reflex answer: “dream figures”.

Imaged or dreamt characters have no physical existence other than as dreamt images. The images in the mind exist as images. The dream exists, much as the story and film of the story exists, even though the characters are fiction.

No one has yet come up with anything that they believe exists and also has no affect upon anything. The reason is that inherently the idea of existing is synonymous with having affect (or potential affect).

Prism’s proclamation that the association is “Without qualification nonsense” openly displays his shallow egocentric willingness to deny anything for his religion, even if it is to his own favor.

But he hasn’t shown that a perfect sphere ‘can’t exist empirically’. It’s just a coincidence of the particular physical laws that we have that there are no perfect spheres. For all you know mankind will invent a technology to create them next week. And if you want to say such a technology can never be invented, I’m going to need an argument for that.

I could provide that argument, but such is actually irrelevant to his stance. God isn’t a sphere or circle. Who cares if perfect circles can exist? It is just one more of the list of logic fallacies this guy spews.

The most relevant concern is that he doesn’t understand the concept “perfect”, thus his arguments are meaningless. And he refuses to learn because he wants to give the impression of already knowing everything (the preacher at the pulpit).

I haven’t really followed his posts in this thread after the first. If he another impossible-to-reason-with atheist, that’s a shame.

He hasn’t even gotten any atheist to agree with him yet. :icon-rolleyes:

And that’s pretty bad on this site.

Okay, I apologize for never having asked you this specifically, James.

Now, how about responding substantively to this part:

[b]Okay, note a particular context in which human value judgments clearly come into conflict. Note how the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here is no more applicable to human beings than to cats.

Afterwards, we’ll bring the discussion back around to how a technical/existential understanding of this is intertwined in the manner in which you construe the definition/meaning of the Real God:

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.

What on earth does this mean, James? How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others? And, in particular, when those interactions precipitate a conflict of some sort.
[/b]
Thus my beef with you is not that you rant foolishly, but that you refuse to being your technical argument [definitional logic] out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors.

How, for all practical putposes, is the Real God a factor here?

And isn’t the whole point of my argment that, with respect to such things as religion and value judgments, the nature of dasein is “for all practical purposes” embodied in presumption and bias?

In other words, how are your own value judgments and reflections on religion not an embodiment of them?

It means that God is the cause of change. Your Situation is your highest possible God. And your Situation is always changing (although perhaps much slower than you would like, thus “pray to” or rather “seek of” your Situation for help in making it change faster, if that is your desire).

Whatever you prefer or desire to be, humbly seek of (aka “pray to”) the actual, real Truth of your Situation.

In other words, carefully look around and actually pay attention to the details of what is going on around you and adjust what you can toward what you prefer. Often that involves others, sometimes not.

Now doesn’t that relate to your day to day dasein concerns and a relevant “real factor” in any conflicts going on?

But then according to Prism, your Situation is impossible and doesn’t exist. :open_mouth:
:-$

You best bet is a scientific based technology.
Basically Science do not rely on absolute perfection.
According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.

You tell me at least in theory how can mankind prove an absolutely perfect circle, i.e. totally unconditional perfect circle. How?

Note I had argued a empirical perfect circle is possible when qualified [conditioned] to certain conditions, e.g. ordinary observations, physical measurements, etc. but all these so-claimed perfect circles are qualified, not unqualified.

As I had asked above, show me at least theoretically how can one verify an absolutely perfect circle empirically?

Btw, you are not a “God” who can monopolise the meaning of the word ‘perfect’. Who are you to dictate what ‘perfect’ must mean and that everyone on Earth must obey your meaning.

Note the meanings of Perfect [I have listed this many times], the ones relevant to the OP are in bold, with emphasis on absolute, complete;
googledictionary.freecollocation … rd=perfect

Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be

  • she strove to be the perfect wife
  • life certainly isn’t perfect at the moment

Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless

  • the equipment was in perfect condition

Precisely accurate; exact

  • a perfect circle

Highly suitable for someone or something; exactly right

  • Gary was perfect for her—ten years older and with his own career
    Denoting a way of binding books in which pages are glued to the spine rather than sewn together

Thoroughly trained in or conversant with

  • she was perfect in French

Absolute; complete (used for emphasis)

  • a perfect stranger
  • all that Joseph said made perfect sense to me

(of a number) Equal to the sum of its positive divisors, e.g., the number 6, whose divisors (1, 2, 3) also add up to 6

(of a tense) Denoting a completed action or a state or habitual action that began in the past. The perfect tense is formed in English with have or has and the past participle, as in they have eaten and they have been eating (since dawn) (present perfect), they had eaten (past perfect), and they will have eaten (future perfect)

(of a flower) Having both stamens and carpels present and functional

Denoting the stage or state of a fungus in which the sexually produced spores are formed

(of an insect) Fully adult and (typically) winged

Obviously dictionary meanings are general, but note how perfect is used in the theological and philosophical settings;

‘Perfect’ is used in a theistic context like;

My meaning is ‘perfect’ as used in this OP is based on the above context.

My use of a perfect circle is to illustrate how theists rhetorical stretched [due to psychological compulsion] from the empirical, the empirical possible, to the transcendental illusion which is an impossibility.

Consensus is obviously necessary but most thesis and theories do not gain consensus immediately.
What is critical is do you have any convincing counters to my argument in the OP?

It is not likely I will get consensus perhaps none at all in such a forum with very limited room to explain my argument in more details to convince anyone. I do not expect any consensus via faith, but the fact is for anyone to understand my arguments fully, thoroughly and convincingly, they will have to spent years on Kant, Buddhism, the neurosciences, and others.

My main purpose for the OP is at most to gather as many counters as possible and knock them off as they come.

Nothing can be proven to those who don’t even understand the words.

Hahaha. :laughing: :laughing:
Last refuge; … “You’re not God. I don’t have to listen to you!”
:laughing: :laughing:

No. You listed types … and screwed that up too. Try to learn the difference.
I provided a definition for you. You just refuse to learn anything.

Which are the required and desired elements for this case?

What is the flawless condition in this case?

Accurate concerning what in this case?

Suitable for what purpose in this case?

You still haven’t defined what “perfect” actually means, especially in this case. Dictionaries don’t always tell.

And just to let you know once more:
[list]The concept of “Perfect” is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal.[/list:u]
The dictionaries have concurred. They were just a little less definitive. But you still have to state what standard or ideal God is to match in order to be “absolutely perfect”.

Haha. As your reference, you quote someone who is “poorly understood” and merely used the word once. Haha =D>
:laughing:

You have been provided with a dozen “counters”. You choosing to ignore what every person here has been telling you and merely repeating your errors is a sign of something seriously wrong with you, not merely your arguments. If this had been a masters or doctoral thesis, you would have been kicked out long ago. You seriously need to measure up to the bar and preach opinion a lot less. Try actually learning of your mistakes from others … preferably BEFORE you shoot off your mouth with nonsense.

Yet you have failed to “knock down” a single one of the refutations.
Your argument is completely useless.

Learn a little logic. And learn when you have made a mistake.

Your meaning of ‘Perfect’ has a semblance to the dictionary’s meaning, i.e.

but why do you ignore the additional meaning ‘absolute, complete.’ ?

In any case your idea of ‘perfect’ is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, i.e.
your “The concept of “Perfect” is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal.” is not tenable because you cannot get a 100% exact match within empirical elements.
In addition, the term ‘ideal’ imply an empirical-rational impossibility.

Now when you apply your term ‘perfection’ to an absolutely perfect God, it is already an impossibility to start with.

The quality of God as I am claiming is God has an overall quality quality of absolute perfection. As I have shown your term ‘perfection’ is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

On top of the quality of absolute perfection, God is attributed as being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience and whatever ‘omni’ that a theist assign to his God. Another question how are you to prove these ‘omni’ traits of God within an empirical-rational reality?

Point is whatever traits and qualities are assigned to God, it cannot be lower than being in an absolutely perfect state which I have shown is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

As I had asked many times, what other basis of reality [other than on moral grounds, hallucinatory, illusory, psychiatric, theological faith,] can you show me that God is a possibility as real?

When will you ever learn?

How can you be SO stupid?
Poorly understood by others do not mean poorly argued by Descartes.
Many of QM theories are poorly understood by many Physicists and non-Physicists.

You cannot be that ignorant, the term ‘perfect’ is commonly attributed directly and indirectly to God within the theistic community. Just do a google for ‘perfect God’.

Because if you had a lick of sense, you could see that they don’t add anything to it, as many have repeatedly told you.

Bullshit, but you STILL haven’t specified the standard or ideal.

Only to the naive such as yourself. I don’t have a problem with it, nor most scientists.

Just a repeat of your logic fallacies … geeezzz.

Perfection is a RELATIVE TERM. You have to relate it to some ideal for it to have meaning.

Saying “absolute meaningless” doesn’t really help your case.

I agree perfection is related to something, it need not be an ideal to start with.

Thus when I used the term ‘perfection’ is imply perfection in relation to X [whatever that is].

I had claimed a qualified ‘perfection’ within empirical rational reality is a possibility. e.g. if someone state 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples that is a ‘qualified’ perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality.

However if any one insist 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is an ideal perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality, that is an impossibility, e.g. if the apples are of different species, the more accurate answer would be = 1 red apple + 1 green apple.

Now when you attempt to have perfect match to an ideal [which itself is a perfection] then you have double the problem, i.e.

An ideal perfection in relation of an ideal [perfect] X.

In above cases, those sort of perfection presented are impossibilities in an empirical-rational reality.

You have very serious semantics issues.

Modifiers to category items are irrelevant to the categorical logic involved (ie it doesn’t matter what kind of apple).

The “ideal” is merely whatever you declare. It could be merely a “perfect” match to your blue shirt, yellow underwear, girlfriend’s personality, …

Now an “absolutely perfect” (a redundant term) God is perfect in WHAT SENSE?? Perfect in WHAT WAY? Perfect at doing WHAT???

As I had stated your philosophical thinking it very shallow and narrow. To bring in any semantic justifications in this case is philosophically childish.

When you see two apples the following are true [facts] but qualified to the perspective and conditions;

  1. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples - common sense and basic arithmetic.

  2. Existence of 1 green apple + 1 red apple = by color

  3. Existence of 1 granny smith apple + 1 Washington red apple = by variety

  4. Existence of two bundles of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. - by Science

  5. Existence of X numbers of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. in motion and in space.

  6. Other valid perspectives …

The point is you cannot deny the truth of the above statements as qualified within the specified perspectives.

Point is these statements could be perfect description of the the qualified truth but they cannot be an absolute perfect truth that is true under all perspectives.

“ideal” = “what is declared” you got to be joking!!!

Note these meanings from a dictionary;

In philosophy, the ideal is related to Plato’s Form.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

The rationality is a theist MUST claim absolute perfection for a God by default as I had argued, no theist will want their God to be dominated by another and thus ending up with that inferior God having to kiss the ass of another absolutely perfect God. This is why the term ‘absolutely’ is a necessity in this case to reflect the ontological quality of a perfect God, i.e. “a God than which no greater or more perfect can exists.” This is the super Ace Card all theists must hold.

With the generic ontological principle attributed to God, this state and quality is attributable to any claim for God by any theist.

Thus a theist may claim his God is “the absolutely perfect creator than which no greater nor more perfect creator can exists”.
Note such a claim is made by theists, not me.
What I am claiming is such a God is an impossibility within empirical rational reality.
As I had presented, perfection if any within empirical rationality is always relative thus an absolutely perfect God which MUST exists for a theist [as claimed by thought only] cannot be possible within an empirical-rational reality.

You are imagine your stance and understanding of ‘perfect’ is an Ace Card, but it is actual a dud.

.Dup

Oh give it a break. You are one of the most shallow new-age drones I have run across at this site. And now, as is often attempted, you claim any concern for the meaning of your words is “just semantics”, because of course we all know that the meanings of your words are arbitrary anyway.

YOU JUST STATED, “When you see two apples”. Thus your (1) isn’t “common sense”, nor arithmetic. It was your hypothetical PREMISE.

Totally, 100% irrelevant to the logic that you saw TWO apples; “When you see two apples…” And whatever details there are concerning the apples are NOT “Perspectives”. They are category item details and irrelevant to the premise.

"Under all perspectives"??? What kind of excuse making bullshit is that?
Oh if I choose to be a complete jackass idiot and ignore logic, then there might be more or less than two apples. I’m FREE!!! I’m FREE!!”.

The term “absolutely” is redundant. And you STILL haven’t related the word “perfect” to whichever standard or ideal you have in mind. And now you add, “greater”. GREATER THAN WHAT??? GREATER in WHAT WAY?? Greater at DOING WHAT???

Saying “whatever the theist is claiming” (sloughing blame onto the theist) does NOT answer the necessary question. But even worse, you can’t argue against that theist because he never answered it either.