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

[Vita]

1 + 1 = 2 is perfect mathematically but there is no absolute 1 + 1 = 2 in empirical reality, If you add one apple with another apple, you get two apples but both apples are never the same. One drop of water plus one drop of water equal one bigger drop of water.

So just because we haven’t found two perfect apples, nothing perfect exists?

[Sy Borg]

God is shaped like a simian, based on an ape morphology. After all, man was made in his image. So God would obviously require knees to reflect his own Sacred Knees.

Why is God - a humongous universe sized spirit - a simian?

Does that mean God evolved from arboreal mammals, giving him forward facing eyes? Did God require hands so he could gripping branches and make tools? Does God walk upright so he can see over tall savannah grasses? Does God lack body fur so he can sweat and cool down when he is engaged in persistence hunting?

Or might God be created in Man's image?

[Vita]

God is shaped like a simian, based on an ape morphology. After all, man was made in his image. So God would obviously require knees to reflect his own Sacred Knees.

Why is God - a humongous universe sized spirit - a simian?

Does that mean God evolved from arboreal mammals, giving him forward facing eyes? Did God require hands so he could gripping branches and make tools? Does God walk upright so he can see over tall savannah grasses? Does God lack body fur so he can sweat and cool down when he is engaged in persistence hunting?

Or might God be created in Man's image?

What image would we be made in? I could sculpt an alien or a dog and say it was made in my image because I pictured it in my mind.

[Sy Borg]

God is shaped like a simian, based on an ape morphology. After all, man was made in his image. So God would obviously require knees to reflect his own Sacred Knees.

Why is God - a humongous universe sized spirit - a simian?

Does that mean God evolved from arboreal mammals, giving him forward facing eyes? Did God require hands so he could gripping branches and make tools? Does God walk upright so he can see over tall savannah grasses? Does God lack body fur so he can sweat and cool down when he is engaged in persistence hunting?

Or might God be created in Man's image?

What image would we be made in? I could sculpt an alien or a dog and say it was made in my image because I pictured it in my mind.

We are not made in any image, but our bodies are based on a simian body plan, with evolutionary features as described above.

[Jacob10]

I repeat, as no one can prove definitively whether there is or isn’t a God then all anyone do is hope that there is or isn’t a God.

Sound philosophy.

Since no one can prove definitively whether there is or isn’t a dragon in my garage, then all anyone do is hope that there is or isn’t a dragon in my garage.

I suppose you are correct…..but the comment about God still applies.You only have a hope that God exists or doesn’t exist.This is all anyone has and is SOUND philosophy.

Unless you have that definitive proof up your sleeve to confirm it one way or the other.

[Count Lucanor]

but the comment about God still applies.You only have a hope that God exists or doesn’t exist.This is all anyone has and is SOUND philosophy.

No, it doesn't, no, I don't and no, it isn't. If you affirm the existence of some entity, it becomes your burden of proof, I don't have to assume its existence and then proceed to disprove it. That would not be sound philosophy.

Unless you have that definitive proof up your sleeve to confirm it one way or the other.

Again, it is your burden of proof, not mine. You can't prove it? Then I'm well-justified in believing it doesn't exist, and I don't need to prove anything. Asking me to do so would be a fallacy. BTW, since what is "God" is purely a theoretical, ideal construct, that can be modified as the advocate of its existence so wishes, a "disproof" could not apply. You can always reconstruct the abstract concept so that it avoids being disproven, which is exactly what most theist advocates do. Give me some recognizable, stable concept of "God", and we may be talking.

[Sy Borg]

You only have a hope that God exists or doesn’t exist.

I have already said that I'd hoped God existed, but it appears to be a purely subjective phenomenon. The clincher comes from NDEs. If God was objective, then Muslims might see Jesus instead of Allah (or vice versa), but they don't.

Then again, I also hope that the Earth and/or the Sun are sentient, but we have no solid evidence. I have hope that the spirits of our ancestors live on, as posited by a number of indigenous peoples, but there's no solid evidence. I hope that time is not as we perceive it and there are extraordinary other dimensions in which to exist in bliss, or at least peace.

The God v no God is a false dichotomy. There remain all manner of exciting possibilities that don't involve deities. However, in my experience, exciting possibilities always seem to give way to anti-climactic findings, eg. the canals of Mars were once thought to be evidence of civilisations and the planet turned out to be an irradiated, toxic desert covered in very fine dust that gets into everything.

[Jacob10]

but the comment about God still applies.You only have a hope that God exists or doesn’t exist.This is all anyone has and is SOUND philosophy.

No, it doesn't, no, I don't and no, it isn't. If you affirm the existence of some entity, it becomes your burden of proof, I don't have to assume its existence and then proceed to disprove it. That would not be sound philosophy.

Unless you have that definitive proof up your sleeve to confirm it one way or the other.

Again, it is your burden of proof, not mine. You can't prove it? Then I'm well-justified in believing it doesn't exist, and I don't need to prove anything. Asking me to do so would be a fallacy. BTW, since what is "God" is purely a theoretical, ideal construct, that can be modified as the advocate of its existence so wishes, a "disproof" could not apply. You can always reconstruct the abstract concept so that it avoids being disproven, which is exactly what most theist advocates do. Give me some recognizable, stable concept of "God", and we may be talking.

You are misguided by incorrect philosophy.

As no proof is given one way or the other then the burden of proof doesn’t apply to either side.

How can either side offer proof is no proof is provided?

Hence, all either side has is HOPE.

[Jacob10]

You only have a hope that God exists or doesn’t exist.

I have already said that I'd hoped God existed, but it appears to be a purely subjective phenomenon. The clincher comes from NDEs. If God was objective, then Muslims might see Jesus instead of Allah (or vice versa), but they don't.

Then again, I also hope that the Earth and/or the Sun are sentient, but we have no solid evidence. I have hope that the spirits of our ancestors live on, as posited by a number of indigenous peoples, but there's no solid evidence. I hope that time is not as we perceive it and there are extraordinary other dimensions in which to exist in bliss, or at least peace.

The God v no God is a false dichotomy. There remain all manner of exciting possibilities that don't involve deities. However, in my experience, exciting possibilities always seem to give way to anti-climactic findings, eg. the canals of Mars were once thought to be evidence of civilisations and the planet turned out to be an irradiated, toxic desert covered in very fine dust that gets into everything.

Well there either is or isn’t a God.That is not a false statement.If that God exists,would you say that that God is a good or bad God?

[stevie]

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 am not a theist but why should "God" be subject to your ideas (or any other human's ideas) about "perfection"?

[Sy Borg]

You only have a hope that God exists or doesn’t exist.

I have already said that I'd hoped God existed, but it appears to be a purely subjective phenomenon. The clincher comes from NDEs. If God was objective, then Muslims might see Jesus instead of Allah (or vice versa), but they don't.

Then again, I also hope that the Earth and/or the Sun are sentient, but we have no solid evidence. I have hope that the spirits of our ancestors live on, as posited by a number of indigenous peoples, but there's no solid evidence. I hope that time is not as we perceive it and there are extraordinary other dimensions in which to exist in bliss, or at least peace.

The God v no God is a false dichotomy. There remain all manner of exciting possibilities that don't involve deities. However, in my experience, exciting possibilities always seem to give way to anti-climactic findings, eg. the canals of Mars were once thought to be evidence of civilisations and the planet turned out to be an irradiated, toxic desert covered in very fine dust that gets into everything.

Well there either is or isn’t a God.That is not a false statement.If that God exists,would you say that that God is a good or bad God?

You set up a false dichotomy based on mythology.

God is subjective. That is clear. So are vampires and other subjects of our dreams, nightmares and imaginings. How good your particular God is depends entirely on your individual conceptions.

There is no giant spirit anywhere that is shaped like a male hominid, except in the heads of some hominids.

[Belindi]

Perfection always subject to somebody's evaluation. Perfection is relative. For instance a perfect dog for one person is not a perfect dog for someone else. E.g. a perfect holiday for Joe would be a bore for John. A perfect performance of a famous symphony might not please its composer at all.

On the other hand, a perfect piece of deductive reasoning is absolutely, not relatively , perfect. God however is not usually thought to be the same as deductive reason.

[Count Lucanor]

You are misguided by incorrect philosophy.

As no proof is given one way or the other then the burden of proof doesn’t apply to either side.

How can either side offer proof is no proof is provided?

Hence, all either side has is HOPE.

It seems you are not in a good position to determine what is sound philosophy or not, given that you're not even aware of basic, entry-level principles concerning logical fallacies, as well as some well-known arguments against that specific fallacy that you endorse, which suggests that anything you assert as existing, immediately becomes a real possibility because "it has not be proven not to exist". The Flying Teapot? The dragon in my garage? Any entity I just made up? That is your "correct philosophy".

[Jacob10]

You are misguided by incorrect philosophy.

As no proof is given one way or the other then the burden of proof doesn’t apply to either side.

How can either side offer proof is no proof is provided?

Hence, all either side has is HOPE.

It seems you are not in a good position to determine what is sound philosophy or not, given that you're not even aware of basic, entry-level principles concerning logical fallacies, as well as some well-known arguments against that specific fallacy that you endorse, which suggests that anything you assert as existing, immediately becomes a real possibility because "it has not be proven not to exist". The Flying Teapot? The dragon in my garage? Any entity I just made up? That is your "correct philosophy".

I always offer sound philosophy.If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist then you have no option to admit that God might exist.Simple.Don’t over complicate things.Sound Philosophy is not complicated.

[Count Lucanor]

I always offer sound philosophy.If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist then you have no option to admit that God might exist.Simple.Don’t over complicate things.Sound Philosophy is not complicated.

First of all, you cannot prove that I cannot prove that "God" doesn't exist. You can only hope that I either can or cannot.

Maybe that will give you a taste of an ad ignorantiam fallacy, which is just too far away from sound philosophy.