Philosophy Discussion Forums

They must be the rock on which their wives and children can lean. But who would be their "father", their rock to lean on in hard times? Santa God is an existential safety net.

There is certainly a human predilection for belief in god like beings. It is a lot more complex than a simple sentence though. Also I think your example is a bit too glib. I mean people certainly believe the things they want to, but only up to a point and not in a straight forward manner. A young person might want a safety net but that does not mean they instantly believe in god like beings.

By the way what sophisticated models of God (with a capital G) are there? I mean as soon as you capitalise God it feels like you are talking about Christian God (which is immediately odd to me - like no other celestial conceptions exist). And as soon as you talk about Christian God you start giving Christian God properties. Now there is a lot of variation in the properties that people assign to Christian God but so far all properties which I have ever read that are assigned to God are either nonsensical concepts like infinity, omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, etc or nonsensical as in round circles or nonsensical as in plain good old fashioned nonsense like my car like to pretend it's a rabbit therefore it loves you and is perfect.

I mean you criticise billions of people for their 'obviously' incorrect and naive and nonsensical beliefs but you should really think if your ideas are actually any better. A lot of famous philosophers have tried to prove God over the years and failed miserably coming up with nonsense like Pascal's wager which a child could (and would) see through. Are you so much wiser than all known philosophers?

I see belief in nonsense as just part of the human condition, I'm sure I believe in nonsense too. I just hopefully believe in less nonsense

I agree with you about Spectrum's repetition by the way, but that complaint could be aimed at many.

DM, the strongest argument I know against God as being itself is that there is no point in rebranding "being" or "universe" with "God", especially given the tremendous ambiguity surrounding the term. I have heard this notion referred to as "skipping the middleman".

To some extent, many new age thinkers take this approach, referring to "communicating with the universe" or with nature. It's basically the same thing - a surrendering of sorts to see what kind of inputs arrive spontaneously, getting your mind out of the way so as to experience life in its primal rawness, relatively unmediated by words and convention. This is basically psychonaut behaviour - and exploration of the hidden layers of subjectivity. The term is usually reserved for drug based psychological exploration but the same aims are seen in prayer, meditation, deep contemplation and Zen - the emptying of one's ego to let something else in.

Back when I was crazy and broke, I could only afford a little psychotherapy. So I'd imagine having a session with the shrink in my mind by anticipating the kinds of questions a highly perceptive psychiatrist might raise. My "virtual shrink" was able to ask me hard questions I might not have otherwise considered. This "voice in my head" became a reliable guide, and something akin to the voice of conscience (and perhaps not far from some people's experience of what they think of as God).

In every case the idea seems to be to "get out of yourself" so as to gain clarity, to be less involved with the ego and thus more receptive to the outside world. God would seem to be one such vehicle, amongst other things.

-- Updated 01 Nov 2017, 17:58 to add the following --

Eduk wrote:By the way what sophisticated models of God (with a capital G) are there?

God as the ground of being itself - pantheistic or panentheistic rather than anthropomorphised.

Funny, we have different tolerances. For you the name "God" rings logic alarm bells, for me it's reference to the deity as "He".

Generally beliefs promote placebo style effects. I suspect that in "surrendering" - moving into highly receptive states - anthropomorphism of one's environment would generally make it more relatable in one's mind, and thus promote more placebo effects. Belief is extremely powerful - ask any elite athlete or performer.

Greta wrote:DM, the strongest argument I know against God as being itself is that there is no point in rebranding "being" or "universe" with "God", especially given the tremendous ambiguity surrounding the term. I have heard this notion referred to as "skipping the middleman".

The problem with that is that the "sheer act of being itself" is not the universe, taken in part or as a whole.

How do you mean?

Greta wrote: I think sophisticated theists might say that, yes, it is a state of mind, and that state of mind comes from the connection to God, or The Source. Or something like that.

As you had stated, sophisticated theists may claim a 'state of mind' in connection to an external God that exists independent of the person.

What I meant was that 'state of mind' is by itself, i.e. not connected to anything else external to their selves. Whatever the idea of God it is merely a state of mind confined to the individual and thus it is solely human-made.

Your belief is based on wildly incomplete information. How can we know? Humans have barely been civilised (if at all) for a century or so. A toddler is not yet privy to the information it will have as an adult.

It is not based on "wildly incomplete information." In a forum like this, it is not practical for me to produce all the relevant information.

I have given you clues to a 'psychological impulse' in my earlier posts, i.e. re Abraham willing to kill his son on God's command.
Some believers [currently jihadists] will commit the worst of evils and violence to protect their existential security when they feel their theism is threatened. The central doctrine of all the major religions is related to the afterlife, rebirth, etc.
Note the saying, "there are no atheists in foxholes*" [* defensive holes dug in a war]

My hypothesis is based on very extensive research I have done on this on this issue, re theism, religions, psychology and other related knowledge.

I have stated many Eastern Religions [Buddhism] are recognizing that terrible 'psychological impulse' in various ways.

Was our universe the first? No one knows. We seem to assume it was the first. We would probably also assume that nothing could survive the heathd eath of a universe. Yet, what problem would intelligent spacefaring life not be able to anticipate and survive? For all we know, there could be beings that evolved to the godlike stage of living off and in space itself, and who survived the death of prior universes, existing informationally within our universe (a la "God is within").

I'm not saying it is so. I'm just saying that any beliefs, pro or con the non-childish conceptions, are simply beliefs. You either believe something, or you believe the opposite or, if you are like me, you simply doubt because you don't know the ultimate nature of reality.

I had stated earlier we need to consider beliefs in terms of;

• 1. Empirically based
  2. Empirically possible
  3. Non-empirical based - a priori
  4. Non-empirical and empirically impossible - Synthetic a priori Judgment.

Anything that has empirical elements is empirically possible subject to evidence. Thus I had agreed, human-liked aliens a billion light years away are a possibility awaiting evidence to prove its reality.

I believe what you missed is the critical elements of my proposition on the impossibility of God.
My major premise is

• 'Absolute Perfection is an impossibility'
  God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility

Note, it is "Absolute Perfection" not just any perfection which can be relative [like 100/100 in an objective test].
I have also argued all ideas of God will be defaulted to an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God.

Still, if you just wish to disprove the Santa-like anthropomorphised God of simple-minded believers, be my guest.

"Santa-like anthropomorphised God."
Anthropomorphic is related to human nature and that is empirical.
Therefore a 'Santa-like anthropomorphised God' is an empirical possibility, it could exists somewhere in the Universe. But such an empirical possibility is very low, say 0.0001% and to prove it is real, we need verifiable empirical evidence.

As I had argued elsewhere, the "Santa-like anthropomorphised God" of simple-minded believers whilst is empirically possible with very low possibility, such a concept is based on ignorance of the simple-minded.
The default of "Santa-like anthropomorphised God" which is inferior will ultimately lead to a belief of an ontological God, i.e. the absolutely perfect Being. It has to be - as driven by that terrible inherent psychological impulse - that "zombie parasite" within.

The end game is 'the absolutely perfect God' is an impossibility. [As one of the many support for my argument, I'll throw in Kant's view on this]. In general 'God is an impossibility."

-- Updated Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:16 pm to add the following --

[b]Dark Matter[/b] wrote:Hmmm. I wonder how far human beings would have progressed if they were only interested in the already-known.

Note my point above re,

• 1. Empirically possible
  2. Non-Empirically impossible - Synthetic a priori judgment.

Human beings has progressed far by projecting on what is possible-to-be-known, i.e. the empirically possible. I have no issue with a speculation of human-liked aliens and UFOs 1 billion light light years away subject to availability of justifiable empirical evidence.

But as of 'God' must be ultimately an absolutely perfect God, that is non-empirical and a proven impossibility. [see my argument in the specific OP for it].

Why must there be an "Ultimate Reality" despite the lack of evidence?
Why can't one live ordinarily and optimally without reifying an "Ultimate Reality" based on nothing and an inference of empirical impossibility.

Why is there something rather than nothing? What must be in order for what is to be as it is?

If we can't know what it is, why not ask ourselves what it is not?

Reality is an spontaneous emergent reality in correspondence with humans collectively.
According to Kant, why there is something rather than nothing is because humans spontaneously are the co-creators of that something.

Yes, we must ask what it is not.
It is definitely not God because God is an impossibility thus a non-starter and moot.
What it is, is humans are the co-creators of it - whatever that it, including the idea of an absolutely perfect God.

No things can exist without humans as its co-creator.

How can you know yourself when you're a rudderless ship adrift on an infinite sea? Even Eastern spirituality, with which you are so enamored, is grounded in an Ultimate Reality.

Humans are constructed with a hierarchy of empirical based selves. We can know our self and selves by studying these empirical-based selves.

Some people believe in a self or soul [the "I AM"] that exists after physical death. Such a self is non-empirical and as such is an impossibility.

I am referring to Eastern spirituality [like Buddhism] without an absolute Ultimate Reality. While some Buddhist doctrines refer to some kind of ultimate reality, they are not Absolutely Ultimate Reality. The Buddhist's ultimate reality ultimately fall back on human nature and not on a theistic absolutely perfect Ultimate Reality, i.e. an absolutely perfect God

If you want to keep deluding yourself, knock yourself out. Someone living in a make-believe world (or infected by a zombie parasite) has neither reason nor desire to escape.

I don't dance with illusions. I made it a point to provide substantiated rational arguments.
A delusional person is one who insists and persists in believing an illusion [God is illusory - a transcendental illusion] is very real despite the absence of evidence.

-- Updated Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:30 pm to add the following --

Eduk wrote:I agree with you about Spectrum's repetition by the way, but that complaint could be aimed at many.

With the terrible evils and violence committed by evil prone theists as inspired by their God, the repetition is necessary and worth the effort.
Just recently, New York Islamic-based Terror Attack
note the past theistic related evils and there will be more to come in the future.

The answer to 'Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?' must be directed to that terrible inherent psychological impulse within the human psyche, i.e. the zombie parasite and to be resolved psychologically as some Eastern Spirituality is doing.

My thesis is not merely opinions but supported by rational justifiable arguments with various reliable references [albeit not presented in a organized way like a proper PhD thesis due to limitation in such a forum].

Btw, how many here and who else has put in so much effort and rational argument for a thesis and note the tons of supporting references [various philosophers] & links I have added.

-- Updated Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:18 am to add the following --

[b]Greta[/b] wrote:Generally beliefs promote placebo style effects. I suspect that in "surrendering" - moving into highly receptive states - anthropomorphism of one's environment would generally make it more relatable in one's mind, and thus promote more placebo effects. Belief is extremely powerful - ask any elite athlete or performer.

In a polytheistic approach, many gods of various qualities are invented to provide the hope for one to fulfill various specific needs, e.g. gods of war, money, love, knowledge, wisdom, predict, good weather, etc. However in general in a polytheistic condition, there is usually a God [master and all powerful] of all the various gods.

While the majority of humans have various psychological needs, the most significant is that psychological angst related to existence and mortality.

Meanwhile humans has evolved to being a more rational being [higher cortical brain from reptillian and limbic]. Thus the trend is for the average human to evolve to a more rational God to ensure 100% assurances to deal with their problem of inevitable mortality.

This problem of the terrible angst associated with mortality is thus taken by the rational mind to resolve the issue. This natural evolution of reason will ultimately lead to an absolute perfect God, i.e. an ontological God and monotheism.
This is why >75% of theists are leveraged on a monotheistic God which is ultimately ontological and an absolutely perfect God.

But, logically and rationally, as I had proven an absolute perfect God is an impossibility which can only exists in thought and reason but not as a reality.

As we can see, it is a terrible psychological impulse that compel theists to reify the idea of an illusory God for psychological security. Because the idea of God is an impossibility, theists has to resort to a 'rising' trend of conception of God and reason to counter critiques.
But because their theistic belief is false and illusory, it will end up in a dead-end, i.e. God is an impossibility as a non-starter and moot.

The alternative way out of this dead-end is thus to reverse to resolving that terrible inherent psychological impulse truthfully and psychologically

Spectrum:

In P1, I explained rationally how 'absolute perfection' as opposed to a relative emprically based perfection is an impossibility.

I don't think you made an argument for it. I think you asserted it:

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.

Theists can simply assert the opposite. They can say that they have experienced something that is an indication of the existence, in some other realm, of a pefect God. It would be similar to an argument against somebody who believes in the Platonic idea that perfect "forms" - like those geometric shapes you mention - really do exist in some other realm. It would just be a semantic argument over the meaning of the word "exist".

Greta wrote:How do you mean?

Why is there something rather than nothing? What must be in order for what is to be as it is? The universe does not and cannot, even in principle, explain its own existence. Only the power of Being itself – which is itself not a being – can explain and determine all the contingent things of our ordinary experience. This is what serious theists of all of the great religious traditions mean by the word “God.” Used in this sense, "God" is not just different than the universe, but radically different.

“Who cares?” Well, I can't make anyone care, but the search for truth involves the pursuit of the real, and what's more real than the reality all contingencies are grounded in? The point is, whatever exists that does not have to exist requires an explanation -- and nothing in the universe, or the universe itself, fits that criterion. In fact, scientists conducting recent experiments at CERN have concluded that the universe itself shouldn't exist.

Now, what is the power of Being itself? I don't know. Neither does anyone else. As Thomas Aquinas famously wrote, “In the end we know God as unknown.”

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 3:17 am to add the following --

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.

That's the silliest argument I've ever seen in my life.

Of course "absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical." No serious theologian would say otherwise. But to say it can be only exist theoretically is a groundless assertion.

Steve3007 wrote:Spectrum:

In P1, I explained rationally how 'absolute perfection' as opposed to a relative emprically based perfection is an impossibility.

I don't think you made an argument for it. I think you asserted it:

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.

Theists can simply assert the opposite. They can say that they have experienced something that is an indication of the existence, in some other realm, of a perfect God. It would be similar to an argument against somebody who believes in the Platonic idea that perfect "forms" - like those geometric shapes you mention - really do exist in some other realm. It would just be a semantic argument over the meaning of the word "exist".

Note I did issue a challenge for anyone to produce or prove an absolute perfect circle can exists anywhere.

Example: a circle is empirical based, but there is no way one can ever produce an absolute perfect circle which is an ideal.
Note the term "absolute".
A 'circle' is one thing where all measurements of the radius is the same, i.e. from the circumference to the center.
Say if you draw a circle on a piece of paper with a pencil, on what bases are you to measure to prove a perfect circle exists.
At the most refine, one may have to measure the carbon atoms, electrons, protons, quarks of the pencil lead on paper? It would be worst when we have to cut out a perfect circle made of paper.
The problem is the subatomic particles are moving all the time within circumference and the center of the circle.

One may be able to measure with common instruments and visually observed a perfect circular shaped marble.
But if one were to look at a supposedly perfect circular marble through an electron microscope, one will notice 'mountains' and 'valleys' on the surface of the marble.

Therefore there is no way one can produce an empirical perfect circle nor one is able to measure one.
The only absolute perfect circle is one that exists in theory and thoughts.

Now moving on to an absolute perfect God, which is an non-empirical based ideal, there is no way even to start proving the existence of a God because it is a non-starter and moot. There is no way one can mixed a transcendental thing with empirical verifications.

The above is how I had explained why an empirical absolute perfection and an absolute perfect God [non-empirical] is an impossibility.
There are many other ways to explain why an absolute perfect God is an impossibility.

The above is my explanation which I have posted in the other thread.

So I did not merely assert my premises [in this case P1] without basis and rational justification.

Elsewhere [note my reply to Greta earlier] I have rationally justified why a God must ultimately be an absolute perfect God.

As I had argued the above mess with the empirical and the rational is because the mess is compelled by the psychological. To reconcile all these mess, one must revert to its psychological origin and resolve its associated problems [evils, violence, sufferings, pains, etc.].
This is neither a frivolous speculation nor fantasy because Eastern spirituality has already approach the problem using this approach thousands of years ago.

All that is irrelevant, Spectrum.

Elsewhere [note my reply to Greta earlier] I have rationally justified why a God must ultimately be an absolute perfect God.

What was the justification?

There is more content here that warrants a response but, just quickly, the idea of God being completely perfect makes no sense, like numerous other claims made about what I think of as "Santa God" (the big man with the big white beard who rewards good deeds).

What if there is something going on in reality that has what we'd think of as godlike qualities, but it's not perfect?

A while back I asked what Spectrum meant by absolute perfection. The response was worthy of Ozzie Osbourne. Below is from AquinasBlog

For humans, to actualize means to realize your inherent potential; to unfold the way you were meant to unfold; to grow into what you intrinsically should become. Much like children carry the as-yet-unknown shape of what they will look like as adults, we all carry a potential maturity, the thing towards which we are most happy growing, the shape of a fullness yet to come. Of course we're all here in the known universe, trapped in the space-time continuum, and we have to go through all these painful form changes and growth experiences to get to who we're supposed to be, to say nothing of all the life events, fear and laziness that hold us back from whatever blooming and becoming we're supposed to be doing. So we have inherent potential, along with time, luck and will, and we use them to realize our potential.

And what of God? In typical style, Aquinas says that God isn't like that; God has no potential and God is not in the process of becoming, because God is already fully actualized. When Aquinas says God is perfect, this is what he means: God is complete, fully realized, fully unfolded, and everything else you can imagine along those lines for a being not constrained by space-time. As Robert Heinlein likes to have his characters say in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land when speaking of things divine, "It's a fullness."

The author goes on to say:

For Aquinas, at it's heart, goodness is a measure of our self-actualization; it is the degree to which we have become what we are drawn to become. He thinks goodness is woven into the fabric of existence. All created things are drawn to be themselves and will naturally seek to grow into their own natures, and by doing so exhibit their goodness.

As you can see, this understanding of perfection is quite unlike anything finite beings might enjoy. Whereas everything in space-time is a compound of act and potency (actuality and potential), God is pure act. These ideas are so far removed from 'big man in the sky' conceptions that anyone who argues from that position can easily be dismissed as irrational or ignorant.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 10:29 pm to add the following --

Since God is the power of being itself, it is ludicrous to deny God.

Dark Matter wrote:A while back I asked what Spectrum meant by absolute perfection. The response was worthy of Ozzie Osbourne. Below is from AquinasBlog

For humans, to actualize means to realize your inherent potential; to unfold the way you were meant to unfold; to grow into what you intrinsically should become. Much like children carry the as-yet-unknown shape of what they will look like as adults, we all carry a potential maturity, the thing towards which we are most happy growing, the shape of a fullness yet to come. Of course we're all here in the known universe, trapped in the space-time continuum, and we have to go through all these painful form changes and growth experiences to get to who we're supposed to be, to say nothing of all the life events, fear and laziness that hold us back from whatever blooming and becoming we're supposed to be doing. So we have inherent potential, along with time, luck and will, and we use them to realize our potential.

And what of God? In typical style, Aquinas says that God isn't like that; God has no potential and God is not in the process of becoming, because God is already fully actualized. When Aquinas says God is perfect, this is what he means: God is complete, fully realized, fully unfolded, and everything else you can imagine along those lines for a being not constrained by space-time. As Robert Heinlein likes to have his characters say in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land when speaking of things divine, "It's a fullness."

The author goes on to say:

For Aquinas, at it's heart, goodness is a measure of our self-actualization; it is the degree to which we have become what we are drawn to become. He thinks goodness is woven into the fabric of existence. All created things are drawn to be themselves and will naturally seek to grow into their own natures, and by doing so exhibit their goodness.

As you can see, this understanding of perfection is quite unlike anything finite beings might enjoy. Whereas everything in space-time is a compound of act and potency (actuality and potential), God is pure act. These ideas are so far removed from 'big man in the sky' conceptions that anyone who argues from that position can easily be dismissed as irrational or ignorant.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 10:29 pm to add the following --

Since God is the power of being itself, it is ludicrous to deny God.

All the above is irrelevant!

-- Updated Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:49 pm to add the following --

[b]Greta[/b] wrote:There is more content here that warrants a response but, just quickly, the idea of God being completely perfect makes no sense, like numerous other claims made about what I think of as "Santa God" (the big man with the big white beard who rewards good deeds).

What if there is something going on in reality that has what we'd think of as godlike qualities, but it's not perfect?

As long as it is empirically-based with a potential for empirical verification, then it is a possibility that it may exists somewhere [here or there] in the Universe.

Who knows the Universe and living things we know of could be the work of some very highly intelligent human-liked [anthropomorphic] beings [empirically possible] somewhere billions of light years away using very sophisticated empirical elements for its creation.
The point here is, all these elements must be empirically-based and thus possible for empirical testing IF and when we can produce the evidence. As we are aware, this is merely a speculation of empirically possibility and the chance of its actuality is 0.0001%.

Even if the above is akin to such godlike qualities, there is always an answered question to these 0.0001%-possibility speculations, i.e. who created these entities, if one can provide an answer to that, there is still the question, who create them?? and this results in a "turtles all the way" INFINITE REGRESSION.

This is why when faced with the problem of INFINITE REGRESSION, the most seemingly logical [not sound] answer is to come up with an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an Ontological God than which no more-perfect can be conceived.

This is what I meant, regardless of whatever God is postulated, the default ultimate God-hypothesis will end up with an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God to resolve the Problem of INFINITE REGRESSION.

The other point is in general the majority of humans [note Abrahamic] will not accept any God that is inferior to another. This will also lead to a Problem of INFINITE REGRESSION and thus everyone ending up with an Ontological God than which no other can be greater or more perfect.

Get it?

-- Updated Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:51 pm to add the following --

Eduk wrote:

Elsewhere [note my reply to Greta earlier] I have rationally justified why a God must ultimately be an absolute perfect God.

What was the justification?

Note the above response re Problem of INFINITE REGRESSION and human nature [given a logical choice] not to accept a God that is inferior to another.

Spectrum wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:A while back I asked what Spectrum meant by absolute perfection. The response was worthy of Ozzie Osbourne. Below is from AquinasBlog


(Nested quote removed.)


The author goes on to say:


(Nested quote removed.)


As you can see, this understanding of perfection is quite unlike anything finite beings might enjoy. Whereas everything in space-time is a compound of act and potency (actuality and potential), God is pure act. These ideas are so far removed from 'big man in the sky' conceptions that anyone who argues from that position can easily be dismissed as irrational or ignorant.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 10:29 pm to add the following --

Since God is the power of being itself, it is ludicrous to deny God.

All the above is irrelevant!

Of course it is! Your ideology depends on it to be thus.

Dark Matter wrote:Of course it is! Your ideology depends on it to be thus.

All the above is irrelevant!