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

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

I have argued with logical and reason, God is an impossibility, i.e. it is a non-starter. As such there is no room for any one to even think there is any possibility God can exists.

In your case, you are resorting and banging on the sub-reality of the psychological to console yourself there is a possibility [no matter how slight] a has-to-be absolute perfect god may exists.

Statements like this make it difficult to argue with you. I have not argued that an absolutely perfect God exists. Neither have I said anything about a "sub-reality" whatever that means. I've argued against this:

• a God by default must be absolutely perfect and
  that absolute perfection is an impossibility [to be real],
  God is an impossibility to be real.

Which you believes proves that God cannot exist. I'm going to bow out of the argument here.

[Spectrum]

So, you choose to go the way of the infantile straw man. You have no argument apart from your arrogance and conceit.

??

You can't define perfection or God for theists and then base your argument on that without appealing to a straw man.

As usual, you are flinging statements everywhere without any basis nor argument.
I have presented my argument and supported the major and minor premises with details.

To define something is to set boundaries, but the power of being itself is without boundaries.

Yours is a straw man.

Note the meaning of 'define';

• 1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”.
  2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe:
  to define judicial functions.
  3. to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly:
  to define one's responsibilities.
  Synonyms: state, name, describe, detail, enumerate.
  4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:
  to define property with stakes.
  5. to make clear the outline or form of:
  The roof was boldly defined against the sky.
  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/define

You deceptively choose 4 and ignored the others.
What I have done is using 1 & 2 to support my argument.

That's why "Traditional arguments for the existence of God actually deny the reality of God because the concept of existence is confining and because the process of arguing the reality of God demeans the grandeur of God. If God could be defined by the conclusion of an argument, then God would be reduced to the same categorical level as the other elements of the argument. Still, arguments for the existence of God function in a positive way because they show the seriousness of human concern about knowing God." (Tillich, by Donald Musser and Joseph Price)

This is another strawman.
I have not "defined" God by the conclusion of an argument.
My conclusion is derived deductively from the major premises, followed to the minor and thus the conclusion.
Read my syllogism, I did not state 'absolute perfection is an impossibility' and immediately jumped to the conclusion 'God is an impossibility'. The argument is 'God imperative MUST be absolutely perfect' as I have demonstrated why, thus it follows deductively, God is an impossibility.

The argument for the existence of God [God is an impossibility] especially at present is very relevant especially when the consequences of theism is the terrible malignant evils and violence committed by SOME theists who are inspired by the words of an illusory God.

There are non-theistics approaches [without evil laden elements] that are available to deal with the inherent existential crisis that theism covering for. My proposals is theism should be weaned off gradually and voluntarily based on philosophical, critical and rational thinking as humanity progress into the future.

Those who are into theism are indirectly complicit to the above evils committed by SOME evil prone theists.

"By love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never." There is a reason the unknown author wrote that, and there is a reason why theists everywhere agree.

All humans has the potential for theism, and that theistic-potential is active in the majority of people. Majority consensus do not equal truth of reality unless support by rationally justified empirical evidences.

That "he" i.e. God is an impossibility and God is compelled to be possible only for psychological reasons to deal with an existential crisis.

[Dark Matter]

Wow! Are you part of "Antifa" by any chance?

[Spectrum]

Wow! Are you part of "Antifa" by any chance?

The evil primal acts of "Antifa" are driven by the same primal forces like that of the evil prone theists. Note my extensive critique of Islam, 'Antifa' would surely shout "Islamophobia"

[Sy Borg]

I've argued against this:

• a God by default must be absolutely perfect and
  that absolute perfection is an impossibility [to be real],
  God is an impossibility to be real.

Which you believe proves that God cannot exist. I'm going to bow out of the argument here.

Well, for the record, I agree with you. Logically disproving the existence of a seemingly impossible deity doesn't mean much, and probably wouldn't convince fundies anyway.

There is no reason whatsoever why a deity, if existent, need be perfect, omnipresent or omnipotent. If deities exist, or if a deity exists, they/it might just seem all-powerful to us (like the Sun) but still be small compared with the total universe. For all we know, deities may emerge in the universe, and evolve and grow like life.

We certainly should not make any assumptions based on Abrahamic texts, whose ideas and claims seem far more base and superstitious than those of mystics in far East.

[Spectrum]

I've argued against this:

• a God by default must be absolutely perfect and
  that absolute perfection is an impossibility [to be real],
  God is an impossibility to be real.

Which you believe proves that God cannot exist. I'm going to bow out of the argument here.

Well, for the record, I agree with you. Logically disproving the existence of a seemingly impossible deity doesn't mean much, and probably wouldn't convince fundies anyway.
...
We certainly should not make any assumptions based on Abrahamic texts, whose ideas and claims seem far more base and superstitious than those of mystics in far East.

I am arguing God in general is an impossibility and that include the deistic, pantheist and panentheistic God where its qualities are pointing toward an absolutely perfect God.

My real concern is to defang the Abrahamic believers who are contributing almost all of the theistic-based evils as inspired by verses in their holy texts.
The fundies will definitely resist, but where the argument is sound and convincing to the critical mass and accepted by them, the resistance of the fundies will crumbled.
At present it is not the case, the majority of Abrahamic believers take it their God exists as real in listening and answering their prayers and had promised them a passage to Paradise (with virgins as a bonus from Allah) and more assuredly if they kill non-believers [e.g. in Islam].
So far there is no convincing arguments to checkmate theists in their belief, but I believe my argument is a complete one to checkmate all the theistic moves.

There is no reason whatsoever why a deity, if existent, need be perfect, omnipresent or omnipotent. If deities exist, or if a deity exists, they/it might just seem all-powerful to us (like the Sun) but still be small compared with the total universe. For all we know, deities may emerge in the universe, and evolve and grow like life.

As I had stated, if a theist claimed their God has anthropomorphic qualities and understand its limitation as an inferior God to another claim, I have no issue with that. There are many theists who claim and believe in a Monkey-liked God [Hanuman] and others claim all sorts of empirical-based gods exist. Empirical based gods are empirically possible but the probability of them existing as real is very slim which might as well be zero. The ultimate point to prove such a god is really real, one will have to produce empirical evidence, which is not likely in practice.
Thus I am not overly concern with claims of empirical gods which may possibly exist empirically. Just bring the empirical evidence then only we can start to talk about it.

What we are more concern with are the 5.4 billion theists out of 7+ billion people who believe in a monotheistic God which in principle must lead to an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God which must be omnipotent and omni-whatever.

Proving "God is an Impossibility" is a benefit for the progress of humanity in the future, i.e. defang and eliminate all possibilities of theistic-based evils inspired by a God.

[Aurelio]

God is neither an impossibility nor is God non existent
God is a necessity to those who believe, and a non entity to those who don't.
Social problems arise when it's a question as to which God or whose God.
The reality is that even if one had empirical truth as to the non existence of God, in any form, that one could present to the masses you would only attempt to do so if you were protected by a force field, and then the question would be asked,.......'to what end'
To deny the existence of God to the masses would be akin to denying them hope, because that is what God represents to them...a focal point of possibility
God an impracticality...yes...but then define God.
In the minds of the masses God exists, because of their need for a God.
Fanaticism is another thing entirely

[Dark Matter]

We certainly should not make any assumptions based on Abrahamic texts, whose ideas and claims seem far more base and superstitious than those of mystics in far East.

Really? Why are you so biased?

[Fanman]

Greta:

Well, for the record, I agree with you. Logically disproving the existence of a seemingly impossible deity doesn't mean much, and probably wouldn't convince fundies anyway.

I agree.

There is no reason whatsoever why a deity, if existent, need be perfect, omnipresent or omnipotent. If deities exist, or if a deity exists, they/it might just seem all-powerful to us (like the Sun) but still be small compared with the total universe. For all we know, deities may emerge in the universe, and evolve and grow like life.

Exactly. I don't think that perfection is a necessity for a deity or deities if it/they exist. What would perfection (a relative term) even mean when applied to a deity or deities? "Absolute perfection", I don't really understand what that term strictly means that term so I'll say "perfection", does not define whether something can or cannot exist - it doesn't logically follow as perfection is not a requisite of existence.

We certainly should not make any assumptions based on Abrahamic texts, whose ideas and claims seem far more base and superstitious than those of mystics in far East.

I agree. Some theists, through their faith, go as far as to draw absolute conclusions about the nature of all reality based upon those texts. Reality could be much more than we currently understand, we only inhabit a tiny part of the universe. So making conclusions about all of reality based upon ancient texts when knowledge was very local doesn't seem right.

-- Updated November 12th, 2017, 7:31 am to add the following --

My second paragraph should read: Exactly. I don't think that perfection is a necessity for a deity or deities if it/they exist. What would perfection (a relative term) even mean when applied to a deity or deities? "Absolute perfection", I don't really understand what that term strictly means so I'll say "perfection", does not define whether something can or cannot exist - it doesn't logically follow as perfection is not a requisite of existence.

[Spectrum]

God is neither an impossibility nor is God non existent
God is a necessity to those who believe, and a non entity to those who don't.
Social problems arise when it's a question as to which God or whose God.
The reality is that even if one had empirical truth as to the non existence of God, in any form, that one could present to the masses you would only attempt to do so if you were protected by a force field, and then the question would be asked,.......'to what end'

Long ago, people had recognized the problem of Infinite Regression. The 'end' is an ontological God, i.e. "a Being than which no greater can arise in any way." I had demonstrated such an ontological God is impossible to be real within reality except in thoughts only.

To deny the existence of God to the masses would be akin to denying them hope, because that is what God represents to them...a focal point of possibility
God an impracticality...yes...but then define God.
In the minds of the masses God exists, because of their need for a God.
Fanaticism is another thing entirely.

You have not provided any basis why fanaticism is independent from the belief in God.
I have done extensively research on the causal relation between theism and theistic-based evils and violence, especially from the Abrahamic religions, notably Islam.

Note my signature below. I recognized religions & theism is a critical necessity for the majority in the past and the present, but the cons of theism are outweighing its pros as humanity is progressing exponentially into the future. The very possibility of extreme is, religious extremists as inspired by their God, could exterminate the human species.

Why the idea of God [illusory] arose and continue to arise in the cognition of the majority is due to psychological factors to deal with an existential crisis that manifest hope [as you say] for some greater good, especially salvation for the Abrahamic believers.
When it is merely for psychological factors, theism is not worth it when compared to the real and potential evils, violence and threats to the progress of humanity.

Thus is it more rational and wiser to deal with such psychological existential issue without a God and thus avoid ALL theistic-based evils and violence.
Many Eastern 'spiritualities' had adopted the non-theistic approach to deal with the same existential problems without any corruption of evils and violence in its doctrines. So it is possible for theistic approaches to be replaced [voluntarily] with the non-theistic approaches.

[Dark Matter]

You sure have some funny ideas about what constitutes proof, wisdom, perfection, research and what’s rational, Spectrum. Reading your posts brings to mind Bizarro World comics.

[Sy Borg]

We certainly should not make any assumptions based on Abrahamic texts, whose ideas and claims seem far more base and superstitious than those of mystics in far East.

Really? Why are you so biased?

I just think the Buddhists have less problems with literalism and misinterpretation of the metaphors of their own religious tomes than do the Abrahamics.

-- Updated 12 Nov 2017, 23:24 to add the following --

I don't think that perfection is a necessity for a deity or deities if it/they exist. What would perfection (a relative term) even mean when applied to a deity or deities? "Absolute perfection", I don't really understand what that term strictly means so I'll say "perfection", does not define whether something can or cannot exist - it doesn't logically follow as perfection is not a requisite of existence.

Yes. Perfection is unchanging, thus dead, and also logically non-existent in reality. Perfection does not even exist as a meme, only an abstraction, because no one can imagine any kind of perfection, although they might think they do at times.

[Spectrum]

Yes. Perfection is unchanging, thus dead, and also logically non-existent in reality. Perfection does not even exist as a meme, only an abstraction, because no one can imagine any kind of perfection, although they might think they do at times.

That is my point,

the idea of perfection is "logically non-existent in reality" i.e. in empirical reality.
But some thinking theists insist their God is 'absolutely perfect" [St. Anselm, Descartes, and all their followers] in empirical reality.
However I further argued, whatever God theists present [ignorantly], ultimately it has to be an absolutely perfect God.
What is real is SOME of these theists [especially the Abrahamic] rely on such an absolutely perfect God to commit terrible and the full range of evils and violence on non-believers and even their own kind.

What is going on is the acceptance of the idea of an absolute perfect God as real [in reality it is not] provide moral support implicitly to those evil prone theists to commit terrible evils as divine duty inspired by the God.

I believe you [living in a majority non-Muslim country] are not aware and mindful of the full impact and potential of the terrible evils, terror and violence committed by evil prone theists of all kinds [especially from Islam] as inspired by their God's words.

Christians are demanding the teaching of creationism, abandoning evolution and other scientific theories. Jihadists are killing non-Muslims because they believe Allah sanctions it. Now, where we can prove God is an impossibility, these evil prone theists will be defanged and have no grounds to rely on a God [illusory] to kill non-believers to satisfy their desperate lust for an imagined paradise with virgins.
It is obvious, Muslims are demanding for Sharia Laws, killing of apostates, 100 lashes for adultery, wear the hijab without respect for rules, and all sorts of impingments on the basic rights of non-Muslims, all because they believe Allah the absolutely perfect God is very real.

To resolve the whole load of evils [full range] of theistic based evil, the most effective solution to convince [by argument] their God is an impossibility and there upon provide them alternative solutions [this is critical] to deal with that inherent existential crisis. I am confident of this because the truth will always prevails.

Note 'absolute perfection' cannot be imagined [restricted to the empirical only] nor can it be conceived [due to lack of empirical element for conceptual reasoning]. The idea of an absolutely perfect God only arise from pure primal reason driven by psychological factors.

Note this from Kant re thing-in-itself and manifesting as God;

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 [of an absolutely perfect God] 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

[Dark Matter]

Yes. Perfection is unchanging, thus dead, and also logically non-existent in reality. Perfection does not even exist as a meme, only an abstraction, because no one can imagine any kind of perfection, although they might think they do at times.

Perfection implies immutability, but it does not imply immobility. To deny the possibility of its volitional self-limitation amounts to a denial of the very concept of its volitional absoluteness, and hence its perfection.

[Sy Borg]

Ie. so you mean the perfection is not absolute but there is an appropriate state of perfection for each moment?