Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

The OP states that God is an impossibility. Big deal. Science has confirmed that the universe shouldn’t exist, either. The former is opinion; the latter is empirical.

[Spectrum]

Note I contrasted absolute perfection and relative perfection, and explained why absolute perfection is an impossibility.

You pointed out the way we use the word 'perfection' about the empirical world was only comparative, but we are not discussing an object in the empirical world.

I'm doubtful it is true inside the empirical world either; I think the claim is based on a misunderstanding of language, of how we use words like 'prefect'. If somebody describes an apple as 'perfect' we understand it in context; we do not imagine they are talking metaphysics.

I agree context is important.
A 'perfect' apple is one that is observed [in accordance its standard description] to have no blemish, spoilage, damage, etc. inside or outside. I believe this sense of 'perfection' is not taken too literally.
On the other hand we have a perfect score of 100% in an objective test, i.e. all answers are correct.
In another we have a perfect score of 7/7 i.e. 100% in a diving or skating performance by an athlete.

My point of introducing the various perfection in the empirical perspective and to introduce to you to the concept of a range of empirical relative perfect to the other extreme opposite claim of an absolute perfection. Note the following range of possibility to impossibility from,

• 1. Empirical reality - e.g. humans
  2. Empirically possible - human-liked aliens or gods
  3. Empirically impossible - an absolutely perfect God

Where is your explanation for your major premise, 'Absolute perfection is a possibility.'

I

It is an assumption, just like your premise that absolute perfection outside the empirical world was 'impossible'

Now you admit yours is an assumption.

Mine [absolute perfection is an impossibility] is not an assumption but a supported premises based on rational arguments.
In addition, my premise is supported by Kant's theories of the thing-in-itself, i.e. absolute- perfection-in-itself is an impossibility in reality.
As Kant had argued, the idea of God is an illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion [we have gone tru this many times].

No, a deduction is simply a matter of following the rules of logic.

Deduction cannot 'demonstrate' the truth or otherwise of a premise. In logic, 'truth' is simply a value which we are free to assume. To argue a premise is also true in an empirical sense requires empirical evidence.
We can have no empirical evidence of God because God is outside the empirical world.

That was what I claimed, i.e. we need empirical evidence to prove things exist in reality after it is deductively, inductively or abductively proven by logic as in a hypothesis.

Anything outside the range of empiricism and empirical possibility is an impossibility in reality. A necessary absolute perfect God is beyond empirical possibility, thus an impossibility within empiricism, it is only possible within thoughts.

Whatever [more so if an absolute perfect God] is outside the empirical world or its possibility requires a leap of faith.

Me: First, logic cannot prove the existence or non-existence of anything.
Why not, logic and prove existence or non-existence of anything, logically, but not necessary empirically.

Logic does not assert the existence of anything. It only deals with the relationship between propositions. Like '1 + 1 = 2' does not prove 'there are two apples'. '1 + 1 = 2' is not true because it coincides with an empirical fact.

I did not say logic can prove empirical existence.
I stated logic can prove logical existence but ultimately we need empirical evidence to prove empirical existence.

Me: Second, the theist does not claim that God is 'empirically as real'; they say God exists outside the empirical world.
Most theists will claim they can experience God as something real, hear and answer their prayers.
Those theists who do not assigned empirical reality to God, believe God exists in their thoughts only.

They do not think God 'hears' in the sense of having a 'real' pair of ears that respond the sound waves. But you are quite right, they say God exists in their thoughts. They think that we have something called a 'mind', which is not empirical, and I agree with them. So we are all aware that some things exist outside 'empirical reality'. Or you can extend your understanding of 'empirical experience' to include thoughts, in which case we experience God empirically. Please yourself.

When it is claimed God can 'hear' and is linked to the empirical person, it is inferred the source must be claimed to be empirical, else there is a fallacy.
If God is claimed to be non-empirical and able to link and connect with the empirical person, this is a contradiction as a truth cannot exists in two difference senses. This is a fallacy of equivocation and conflation.

Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and supported by logic [induction]. That is empirical with logic.

Induction is not part of deductive logic. It cannot show that anything must be the case, for example no amount of white swans can prove there cannot be a black swan. Nor can we discover the colour of swans through logic, we can only do that via our senses.

A scientific theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved.

I never said, induction is part of deductive logic in principle.
However the major premise in a deductive syllogism can be based on an inductive conclusion. I agree in essence this is inductive.

I agree a scientific theory cannot ultimately be a proof per se in the ultimate philosophical sense. I have often stated scientific theories are at best polished conjectures [Popper, Hume].

When I used the term 'scientific proof' it refer to its normal use within the scientific community and not in the philosophical sense.

Me: You can prove that something exists, in that it meets whatever criteria that corresponds to what we might mean by 'exist', but you can never prove non-existence.
Don't insult your philosophical intelligence but resorting to "cannot prove non-existence." This is philosophical cowardice.

When people substitute insults for replies it is a sign they know they have lost the argument.

Stating you are insulting your own self based on the type of statements you made is not an insult.
There is a very strong philosophical stance in the intellectual, judiciary, legal, and by normal conventions, the positive claimant has to provide the proofs. Why is God an exception?
The reason is psychological where theists desperately need to cling a God to sustain psychological security.

In any case, I have demonstrated 'God is an impossibility' thus the question of God's existence is moot and a non-starter. Therefore there is no need to disprove God's existence.

-- Updated Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:56 pm to add the following --

The OP states that God is an impossibility. Big deal. Science has confirmed that the universe shouldn’t exist, either. The former is opinion; the latter is empirical.

The latter is not empirical per-se!

Nah, Science is not confirming the universe should not exists. This is merely a reasoned and speculated hypothesis based on empirical possibility not empirical per-se.
While the above is merely a reasoned speculation, the fact is the universe is existing empirically. Therefore there must be something wrong with that hypothesis/speculation.

That supposedly theory is based on matter(+) = anti-matter(-), therefore the resultant of its inevitable combination is Zero, i.e. non-existence.
I believe the above is based on very narrow thinking.

The issue of matter(+) = anti-matter(-) should be compared to the principles of 'Yin (+) = Yang (-)' but they act complementarily to produce existence and reality.

While the above hypothesis is based on empirical elements and possibilities [very low], the existence of an absolutely perfect God is empirically groundless and an impossibility.
The existence of God is only necessary to support psychological desperations to soothe the rising existential angst.

[Dark Matter]

Antimatter Angst: The Universe Shouldn't Exist

-- Updated October 28th, 2017, 2:12 am to add the following --

As you can see in article in the above link, that the universe should not exist is much more than "a reasoned and speculated hypothesis." Until whatever breaks the symmetry is found, your hypothesis as to why God is an impossibility is called into question.

[Spectrum]

Antimatter Angst: The Universe Shouldn't Exist

-- Updated October 28th, 2017, 2:12 am to add the following --

As you can see in article in the above link, that the universe should not exist is much more than "a reasoned and speculated hypothesis." Until whatever breaks the symmetry is found, your hypothesis as to why God is an impossibility is called into question.

?? How so?
Point is,

• P1. The existing Universe should not exist
  P2. God created the existing universe
  C3. Therefore God should not exist.

If P1 is true, then God should not exist from the theistic point of view. This would add support to the OP, God is an impossibility.

Personally I do not agree with P1 and that hypothesis is not tenable because the universe is in fact existing at present.

[Dark Matter]

Why does it exist?

-- Updated October 28th, 2017, 11:16 pm to add the following --

Who said, “In the end we know God as unknown”? Does it sound like what you’re talking about as being impossible to exist?

[Sam26]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

So,

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

I'll just start this by saying that I'm not religious, that is, I don't subscribe to any religious view of reality. I do believe consciousness survives bodily existence, but that's a bit different.

As set up the argument works, that is, according to the definitions given the conclusion follows deductively. However, the argument doesn't mean that there is no God. It only means there is no being that fits the description as presented in the argument. For example, one could make the claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect, which is a more precise definition for some Christians. The first three attributes have to do with the nature of God, and the last has to do with his/her character.

Moreover, no being's existence is determined by a definition. I could claim, wrongly, that humans have certain properties that they don't have, but that doesn't mean humans don't exist. My own view is that there is no evidence of the existence of the Christian God, or for that matter, there is no evidence of any God. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. The most I can say is that based on my present knowledge of reality, I don't believe God exists. There is no inductive or deductive proof against the idea that there is a being called God, for lack of a better description. On the other hand, there is no inductive or deductive proof for the existence of God either.

The most you can say about your argument is based upon these concepts (the ones presented in the argument), it doesn't follow that a being could exist who possesses such concepts. You can always re-define the concepts so there is no contradiction.

[Spectrum]

I'll just start this by saying that I'm not religious, that is, I don't subscribe to any religious view of reality. I do believe consciousness survives bodily existence, but that's a bit different.

As set up the argument works, that is, according to the definitions given the conclusion follows deductively. However, the argument doesn't mean that there is no God. It only means there is no being that fits the description as presented in the argument. For example, one could make the claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect, which is a more precise definition for some Christians. The first three attributes have to do with the nature of God, and the last has to do with his/her character.

Moreover, no being's existence is determined by a definition. I could claim, wrongly, that humans have certain properties that they don't have, but that doesn't mean humans don't exist. My own view is that there is no evidence of the existence of the Christian God, or for that matter, there is no evidence of any God. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. The most I can say is that based on my present knowledge of reality, I don't believe God exists. There is no inductive or deductive proof against the idea that there is a being called God, for lack of a better description. On the other hand, there is no inductive or deductive proof for the existence of God either.

The most you can say about your argument is based upon these concepts (the ones presented in the argument), it doesn't follow that a being could exist who possesses such concepts. You can always re-define the concepts so there is no contradiction.

My argument emphasizes on the concept 'absolute perfection.'
I have argued God per se by default is reducible to an 'absolutely perfect God' even when SOME theists do not claim absolute perfection for their God.
I have argued why such an absolutely perfect God [possible in thoughts] is impossible in reality. This is equivalent to arguing for the existence of a squared-circle which is contradictory.

Since I have proven God is an impossibility [via reason], the question of whether god exists or do not exists is a non-starter, moot and should not even arise at all. There is no room for you to doubt this at all.

I have explained why people [theists and agnostics] cannot let go of the idea-of-God is due to psychological reasons just like Hume stated induction is due to psychological habits and customs. For many agnostics the idea of God not existing absolutely is an uncomfortable felling somehow - this is only natural psychologically and instinctively.

I have also stated various schools of Eastern spirituality [e.g. non-theistic Buddhism] has understood this psychological basis of the idea-of-god and had turned their attention to resolving its related problem psychologically. [reason why some claimed Buddhism and its likes are more psychotherapy than a religion].

-- Updated Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:40 pm to add the following --

correction:
"uncomfortable felling somehow" - should be "feeling."

Another critical point;
Leaving the question of 'whether God exists or not' as open-ended will provide the moral support by evil prone theists to continue their evil acts in the name of God. Most extremists who commit terrible evil acts believes they are doing it as a divine duty to gain merits as dictated by their God in the holy book.
I claim and insists, in this case, all theists [believing in an impossible God] is complicit to all the evil acts committed by evil prone theists.

OTOH hand if people redirect the theistic elements [due to an existential crisis] to their own psychological shortcomings they are taking the responsibility onto themselves and resolving the problem themselves rather than pushing the problem external to themselves.
When theists rely on a crutch [god & religion with holy texts] to solve their existential crisis, they inevitably provide indirect moral support to evil prone theists to use this collective crutch to commit theistic based evils like those of the fundamentalists and jihadists.

Note my signature. I recognize religions [theistic and non-theistic] are a source of evils by SOME evil prone believers but religions at present are a critical necessity for the majority to deal with the inherent existential crisis. We can only replace religions when humanity can come with alternative fool proof replacements and the starting point is to understand [by reason] and acknowledge why God is an Impossibility.

[Sam26]

Good job of avoiding the argument. One can always make the claim that there are psychological causes for why people believe what they do, and I agree. Psychological causes can be more powerful than any evidence sometimes. I could also make the claim that there are psychological causes for why people don't want to believe in God, but that gets us nowhere. However, I'm just looking at your argument, and I gave reasons why your argument works, but I also gave reasons why your argument doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. I'm sympathetic to many of the atheists points, but again, your argument is a straw man, because all you're doing is setting up an argument based on some definition, and concluding that God doesn't exist. One can also create an argument based on God omnipotence, that is, defining it in such a way that it's contradictory. So if it's contradictory, then God doesn't exist. I don't really care if God exists or not, my only concern is the argument itself, is it a good argument? The simple answer is no, it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, all it does is show that a being with the attribute/s as defined in your argument doesn't exist.

[Spectrum]

Good job of avoiding the argument. One can always make the claim that there are psychological causes for why people believe what they do, and I agree. Psychological causes can be more powerful than any evidence sometimes.
I could also make the claim that there are psychological causes for why people don't want to believe in God, but that gets us nowhere.

Basically all human behaviors and thinking are ultimately psychological.
In that sense, I agree why people do not believe in God is psychological, i.e. it has something to do with the brain, neurons and mind.

There are a few basis why people do not believe in God, i.e.

1. Due to an inborn indifferent attitude to the idea of God
2. Due to a convincing proof, God is an impossibility
3. Due to various reasons, proofs, etc.
4. Various bad experiences with theism, molested by a priest.

I was once a serious theist [pantheist and panentheist], but since long ago has graduated to be a non-theist. I am sure this has a psychological basis in that there are "improvements" in a reasoning, wisdom and rationalization capabilities.

However, I'm just looking at your argument, and I gave reasons why your argument works, but I also gave reasons why your argument doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. I'm sympathetic to many of the atheists points, but again, your argument is a straw man, because all you're doing is setting up an argument based on some definition, and concluding that God doesn't exist. One can also create an argument based on God omnipotence, that is, defining it in such a way that it's contradictory. So if it's contradictory, then God doesn't exist. I don't really care if God exists or not, my only concern is the argument itself, is it a good argument? The simple answer is no, it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, all it does is show that a being with the attribute/s as defined in your argument doesn't exist.

IF you read the OP and my subsequent posts in this thread, my argument is not based merely on definitions.
I provide very reasonable justifications for my major and minor premises.

The simple answer is no, it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, ...

Can you demonstrate to me how you can prove something [not contradictory] do not exists absolutely beside using rational justified arguments?

Other than relying on arguments based on reason, can you prove and demonstrate to me UFOs [or whatever you choose] do not exists absolutely?

The idea of God is based on reason [pure and crude] plus psychological basis.
Thus we need to use reason to reason out wrong reasonings [note the Critique of Pure Reason by Kant] and I have also referred to psychological reasons [there are tons of research on this] to justify why theists believe in an impossible God.

[Dark Matter]

...all it does is show that a being with the attribute/s as defined in your argument doesn't exist.

That was my point from the very beginning.

[Sam26]

...all it does is show that a being with the attribute/s as defined in your argument doesn't exist.

That was my point from the very beginning.

I understand your point, and I've read your argument. It's based on a particular understanding of perfection, that is, a definition. You give your reasons why, based on "absolute perfection," that God couldn't exist, and again I understand. But your argument is saying that God doesn't exist, period, based on this argument. I'm saying something more, that is, all it does, is say that a being with the attributes as put forward by the argument doesn't exist. No being does or does not exist based on a concept, especially a concept as vague as perfection. That's why the ontological argument for God's existence doesn't work, you can't prove God exists based on the concept that existence is a perfection, and since God is perfect, therefore, God exists.

Also there is a difference between saying a being as described in your argument doesn't exist, as opposed to saying that any conceptual framework for a God existing is false, which I assume that ultimately that is what you're saying. It's logically possible that a being called God could exist, but just not with the property you're ascribing to him/her. I'm not sure you're following my point.

-- Updated November 7th, 2017, 8:27 am to add the following --

It's not difficult to come up with a proof. The difficult part is demonstrating that the proof is sound, that is, it's valid and the premises are true. Christians can come up with proofs that convince them. For example...

Modus Ponens

(1) If the Bible is generally true, then the God of the Bible exists.
(2) The Bible is generally true.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Of course it's only going to convince those who believe premise 1. However, if you do believe premise 1, then that's all you need to be convinced. Moreover, that's all you need to have your proof. I'll say the same thing to Christians that I'm saying to you, namely, sure it's a proof, but it's definitely not convincing - not even close.

[Dark Matter]

I think you confused me with Spectrum.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

I may be wrong here, but these are my thoughts.

I think that Sam26 is right. You've demonstrated according to the parameters of your argument that "absolute perfection" cannot exist empirically, but you haven't therefore demonstrated that God or gods cannot exist. We haven't (well I haven't) encountered something that I believe is absolute perfection, but that doesn't mean its an impossibility. Your argument is based upon a subjective perception, not an empirical reality – which makes formulating logical arguments about it difficult, because you can't really form a sound argument against something when the premise is a subjective perception. You cannot, for example, claim in the form of a sound logical argument that your perception of perfection is right and someone else's is wrong, as you'd only be arguing for your subjective perception, not an objective reality. A theist may believe that the God they believe in is absolutely perfect, you can argue that it isn't, but you can't demonstrate that it isn't, because perfection is subjective and therefore so is "absolute perfection". I think your argument tries to make perfection an objective quality, but it isn't and therefore what you've proven, is that you think absolute perfection cannot exist and since theism holds that God is absolutely perfect, God cannot exist. Your argument is in the realm of thought, but it seems as though you think that it has a bearing upon reality? How would you falsify you argument?

As an example: I think that a particular snowflake is perfect, can you explain why it isn't through logical argument?

[Sam26]

I think you confused me with Spectrum.

Ya, I guess I did Dark Matter, sorry.

[Dark Matter]

Skeptics tend to ignore theists and conceive God in such a way that it's absurd or God is simply defined out of existence.

-- Updated November 7th, 2017, 3:22 pm to add the following --

Tis' okay, Sam.