Philosophy Discussion Forums

I agree that a lot of religions have gods with powers like omniscience, eternal, omnibenevolent, and other similar powers which are non descriptive and impossible to conceive.
But this is not true of all religions. For example Zeus wasn't omnipotent. He wasn't a perfect being.
Also ignoring recognised religious it is possible to imagine a God like thing which created the world. Granted this God like thing is undefined but undefined means undefined. Not perfect.

Eduk wrote:I agree that a lot of religions have gods with powers like omniscience, eternal, omnibenevolent, and other similar powers which are non descriptive and impossible to conceive.
But this is not true of all religions. For example Zeus wasn't omnipotent. He wasn't a perfect being.
Also ignoring recognised religious it is possible to imagine a God like thing which created the world. Granted this God like thing is undefined but undefined means undefined. Not perfect.

I did not state no one has claimed imperfect gods exist.
I had stated a god with anthropomorphic elements is empirically possible because anthropomorphic meant empirical related. There are many theists who claim such empirical gods exist.

Generally these empirically-based gods has agency power and are more [or extra-ordinary] powerful than the normal person [Zeus, Neptune, Eros, etc.] or existing things [Hanuman - monkey God], their possibility of being real is extremely slim, perhaps 0.001% and lesser.

As with empirical-based gods, there is no real issues as people will accept it is real whenever there are valid empirical evidence to justify or prove its existence. So far since human emerged there are no proofs such empirical gods existed as real. To prove they are real, it is just a matter of bringing the empirical evidence.

In addition, empirical based gods are not an issue in general as there are no related evil ideologies of such empirical-based gods that are a threat to humanity at present nor in the future. Note the real threats to humanity from the absolute perfect God [ ultimately ontological -monotheistic] of the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam.

The very necessary [psychological] absolutely perfect God of the Abrahamic religion is an impossibility, both empirically [e.g. no perfect circle] and non-empirically [due to the Problem of Infinite Regression and other philosophical counters].

What "infinite regression and other philosophical counters"? Or is that just another unjustified assertion?

Spectrum wrote:

[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.

Not necessarily. It's possible that there has always been chaos/"nothingness", with big bangs periodically popping out and becoming orderly.

Spectrum:

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

And presumably everybody, regardless of their beliefs/lack of beliefs, knows that they're not going to be able to do that. The same as if you asked them to point to God, they wouldn't be able to say "that guy over there in the corner."

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.

Yes, of course. As I said, it's like arguing about the existence or otherwise of perfect Platonic forms. Nobody would dispute that it's not possible to point to these things. The pointless disagreement arises when people start arguing about whether perfect idealized concepts that can't be pointed to "exist". I say it's pointless because, as I said, it's just an argument about the meaning of the word "exists".

I take a pragmatic view. I don't care whether perfect gods or perfect circles or, for that matter, perfect idealized laws of physics can be said to exist. I only care whether such concepts are useful.

The Ideal Gas Law is a law which describes physical systems that don't exist anywhere in the universe. There is no such thing, in the observed universe, as an ideal gas. I don't care. The Ideal Gas Law is still useful.

I did not state no one has claimed imperfect gods exist.

Apologies I must have misread some of your earlier comments. I thought you were claiming that all God like beings/conceptions must by necessity be perfect.

Generally these empirically-based gods has agency power and are more [or extra-ordinary] powerful than the normal person [Zeus, Neptune, Eros, etc.] or existing things [Hanuman - monkey God], their possibility of being real is extremely slim, perhaps 0.001% and lesser.[/quote
Philosophically it is hard to deal with absolutes. I think the chance of any of the defined gods that exist in the various religions have a much less than 0.001% chance of existing. I mean if you think through it that would mean that by now considering the billions of humans on earth (ignoring other possible sentient life) there is a good chance that someone's conception of a god like thing is actually right.
Personally I would say the chances are infinitesimally small which is to say there is a chance but the chance is so small that in practice it is zero. After all if you add up all the infinitesimally small chances of all life on earth you still end up with something which is infinitesimally small (which sounds about right to me).

In addition, empirical based gods are not an issue in general as there are no related evil ideologies of such empirical-based gods that are a threat to humanity at present nor in the future. Note the real threats to humanity from the absolute perfect God [ ultimately ontological -monotheistic] of the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam.

I think religion can get far too much credit/blame sometimes. I mean I'm not religious but I don't religion for all bad things in the world. Stalin, Hitler and Kim Jong Un all manage/d to cause a great deal of harm without religion but with terrible false ideologies. My suspicion is that the problem you have with Abrahamic religions is less a case of the religion shaping minds and more the case of minds shaping the religion.

-- Updated November 3rd, 2017, 5:17 am to add the following --

sorry messed up the quotes.

Generally these empirically-based gods has agency power and are more [or extra-ordinary] powerful than the normal person [Zeus, Neptune, Eros, etc.] or existing things [Hanuman - monkey God], their possibility of being real is extremely slim, perhaps 0.001% and lesser.

Philosophically it is hard to deal with absolutes. I think the chance of any of the defined gods that exist in the various religions have a much less than 0.001% chance of existing. I mean if you think through it that would mean that by now considering the billions of humans on earth (ignoring other possible sentient life) there is a good chance that someone's conception of a god like thing is actually right.
Personally I would say the chances are infinitesimally small which is to say there is a chance but the chance is so small that in practice it is zero. After all if you add up all the infinitesimally small chances of all life on earth you still end up with something which is infinitesimally small (which sounds about right to me).

Greta wrote: Not necessarily. It's possible that there has always been chaos/"nothingness", with big bangs periodically popping out and becoming orderly.

Yes, possible. As long as it it fully empirical and rational, there is no issue with Big Bangs, chaos, "nothingness" [qualified], etc.
The Big Bang is merely a theoretical empirical speculation which cannot be proved with direct evidence but since the BB is rationally inferred from indirect empirical evidence it could definitely be empirically possible [perhaps 51% certain but not ].

My argument is with an ultimate necessary God which is claimed to be an absolutely perfect God which cannot be empirical at all. Such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

-- Updated Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:32 pm to add the following --

[b]Steve3007[/b] wrote:Yes, of course. As I said, it's like arguing about the existence or otherwise of perfect Platonic forms. Nobody would dispute that it's not possible to point to these things. The pointless disagreement arises when people start arguing about whether perfect idealized concepts that can't be pointed to "exist". I say it's pointless because, as I said, it's just an argument about the meaning of the word "exists".

I take a pragmatic view. I don't care whether perfect gods or perfect circles or, for that matter, perfect idealized laws of physics can be said to exist. I only care whether such concepts are useful.

The Ideal Gas Law is a law which describes physical systems that don't exist anywhere in the universe. There is no such thing, in the observed universe, as an ideal gas. I don't care. The Ideal Gas Law is still useful.

Absolutes and ideals comprised of those which are empirical and non-empirical based. Both has their usefulness.
Emprical ideals or absolutes, like Ideal Gas Law, absolute temperature, etc. are merely used as ceiling limits and no scientist would claim they are real.

The idea of the ideal absolutely perfect God emerged out of the need to soothe the terrible inherent existential angst. In this sense, God has a psychological utility.

While you may not be bother God is real or not but acknowledge its useful if any,
the problem is, theists [majority] by default claim such a God exists as a real being [ without qualifications].
Therefrom theists claim such a real god delivered to them holy texts via messengers/prophets with commands to guide how to live to qualify them for a passport to Paradise. These supposedly holy texts also contained evil elements that inspired SOME evil prone believers to commit the most terrible evils and violence upon non-believers and even their own believers.

I believe the most effective solution to all the theistic-related-evils is to push the fact that 'God is an Impossibility' thus a non-starter and moot. This will cut off the grounds for any theists to be inspired by an illusory God to commit evil acts.
At present many theistic evil doers commit evil acts because they believe their God commands them to do so as a divine duty to achieve the ultimate divine objective, i.e. gain eternal life in heaven. This how the most seemingly goody-two-shoes can commit the most horrendous evil acts because God said so and permit it.

You may argue it is only the minority of theists who do evil. The point is the idea of God is the basis for all the evil ideologies and it is potentially very malignant. To ensure it is foolproof the most effective solution is enforce the fact, God is an Impossibility and make it the prevalent meme. Therefrom humanity must find non-theistic alternatives to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

-- Updated Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:00 pm to add the following --

[b]Eduk[/b] wrote:

Generally these empirically-based gods has agency power and are more [or extra-ordinary] powerful than the normal person [Zeus, Neptune, Eros, etc.] or existing things [Hanuman - monkey God], their possibility of being real is extremely slim, perhaps 0.001% and lesser.

Philosophically it is hard to deal with absolutes. I think the chance of any of the defined gods that exist in the various religions have a much less than 0.001% chance of existing. I mean if you think through it that would mean that by now considering the billions of humans on earth (ignoring other possible sentient life) there is a good chance that someone's conception of a god like thing is actually right.
Personally I would say the chances are infinitesimally small which is to say there is a chance but the chance is so small that in practice it is zero. After all if you add up all the infinitesimally small chances of all life on earth you still end up with something which is infinitesimally small (which sounds about right to me).

As long at it is empirically based we cannot dismiss its possibility even if the possibility is infinitesimally small. A monkey-liked god capable of greater powers than humans and monkeys somewhere in the Universe is a possibility.

But a non-empirical absolutely perfect God is an impossibility [as argued] anywhere.

I think religion can get far too much credit/blame sometimes. I mean I'm not religious but I don't religion for all bad things in the world. Stalin, Hitler and Kim Jong Un all manage/d to cause a great deal of harm without religion but with terrible false ideologies. My suspicion is that the problem you have with Abrahamic religions is less a case of the religion shaping minds and more the case of minds shaping the religion.

The principles of effectiveness and efficiency is the need to break a large problem into smaller manageable units.
Generally, humanity must recognized ALL sorts of evils, i.e. secular and non-secular, which together is a massive problem. Since evil in general is a big problem we need to break it down into smaller categories.
I am not ignoring all other evils [to be dealt with by the respective authorities] but since this is a religious forum and for efficiency sake, I am highlighting theistic-based evils only.

I have done extensive research in great depths into the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam and noted it is the religion itself, i.e. it is the ethos of Islam from the Quran/Ahadith which contains very evil and malignant elements that inspire SOME Muslims who are evil prone to commit evil acts as divine duty to gain a passport to Paradise with eternal life.

All groups of humans has a certain percentile of the most evil people but why it is only SOME Muslims who are committing the most frequency and degree of terrible evils and violence at present.
I have argued elsewhere, it is the evil elements in the holy texts [Quran/Ahadith] that are feeding those SOME evil prone believers. This is a shame to the majority of people who are so ignorant of the root causes that the commands to commit evil acts are from an illusory God.

Spectrum wrote:My argument is with an ultimate necessary God which is claimed to be an absolutely perfect God which cannot be empirical at all. Such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

I don't believe in perfection per se. At best, apparent perfection.

Greta wrote: Not necessarily. It's possible that there has always been chaos/"nothingness", with big bangs periodically popping out and becoming orderly.

Why? Or did nothing happen to nothing and then that nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then magically rearrange itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs?

Spectrum:

Emprical ideals or absolutes, like Ideal Gas Law, absolute temperature, etc. are merely used as ceiling limits and no scientist would claim they are real.

As I've said, being a pragmatist, I would forget the whole question of what is "real" and just concentrate on what is useful.

The idea of the ideal absolutely perfect God emerged out of the need to soothe the terrible inherent existential angst. In this sense, God has a psychological utility.

Yes, dealing with the knowledge of our own mortality appears to be one of the functions of religion. But another one, perhaps even more important, is tribalism.

While you may not be bother God is real or not but acknowledge its useful if any,
the problem is, theists [majority] by default claim such a God exists as a real being [ without qualifications].

Since I don't know what they mean by "real", I'm not too bothered if they want to claim that. I have no problem with this whole "classical theism" abstract concept God which, I'm told, is entirely beyond human understanding and therefore must have no influence on human lives. But...

Therefrom theists claim such a real god delivered to them holy texts via messengers/prophets with commands to guide how to live to qualify them for a passport to Paradise.

...as you've said here, most theists don't stick to that story. As you say, they actually claim various moral laws are underwritten by this God. In which case, I take those moral laws - those opinions about how people ought to live their lives - as I do any other human opinions, regardless of whether the opinion-holder makes some claim of divine backup.

But...

These supposedly holy texts also contained evil elements that inspired SOME evil prone believers to commit the most terrible evils and violence upon non-believers and even their own believers.

I believe the most effective solution to all the theistic-related-evils is to push the fact that 'God is an Impossibility' thus a non-starter and moot. This will cut off the grounds for any theists to be inspired by an illusory God to commit evil acts.
At present many theistic evil doers commit evil acts because they believe their God commands them to do so as a divine duty to achieve the ultimate divine objective, i.e. gain eternal life in heaven. This how the most seemingly goody-two-shoes can commit the most horrendous evil acts because God said so and permit it.

You may argue it is only the minority of theists who do evil. The point is the idea of God is the basis for all the evil ideologies and it is potentially very malignant. To ensure it is foolproof the most effective solution is enforce the fact, God is an Impossibility and make it the prevalent meme. Therefrom humanity must find non-theistic alternatives to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

...going back to my mention of tribalism above, I still think that religion is a symptom, not a cause. It is one of the most prominent manifestations of our tribalism - our need to belong and to define our identity by the group to which we feel we are affiliated. That (we tend to think) is what gives us our immortality.

So, I don't know, maybe your idea of promoting this "God is impossible" meme might work. But I doubt it. Because those evil parts of those holy texts are not the cause. They are a symptom. I don't think you will ever get rid of the tribalism, and the consequent feelings of alienation by people who feel that they are not living among their own tribe, which is (it seems to me) a major root cause of evils done supposedly in the name of religion.

I suspect it's a root cause that also links those evils to things, such as the recent Las Vegas shooting, that have nothing to do with religion. I don't know, but I suspect the shooter in that case was able to kill hundreds of people because he had a similar sense of alienation which disconnected him from those people and destroyed empathy. We humans have a great ability to switch our empathy on and off. We have a great ability, in the "right" circumstances, to objectify the stranger.

Seems to me that an empirical god is much less likely than a non empirical god. Of course non empirical is undefined. But the concept of empiricism is itself inherently impossible. As pointed out you have either an impossible infinite regression or in equally impossible something from nothing. Again though nothing, the word, is undefined.
In summary language cannot deal with how existence is impossible. Some people shove their gods into this unknown and try not to think about it. Others simply don't know and hope that one day with hard work mysteries that seem incomprehensible won't be.

Greta wrote:

Spectrum wrote:My argument is with an ultimate necessary God which is claimed to be an absolutely perfect God which cannot be empirical at all. Such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

I don't believe in perfection per se. At best, apparent perfection.

In that case you are agnostic of an imperfect god and thus do not refer to god per se which ultimately and imperative must be an ontological absolute perfect God. As long as you qualified your concept of 'god' is imperfect, I have no issue with that.

I have issues with theists who claimed their God is a real and absolutely perfect God or agnostics who are on the fence on such a God.
Point is such a God is claimed to be real and deliver his rule over theists in holy texts where SOME believers are inspired to the extent of killing non-believers and even other believers of their own.
Such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility and these believers do not have any real solid grounds to commit evils in the name of such an illusory God.

Spectrum wrote:

Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I don't believe in perfection per se. At best, apparent perfection.

In that case you are agnostic of an imperfect god and thus do not refer to god per se which ultimately and imperative must be an ontological absolute perfect God. As long as you qualified your concept of 'god' is imperfect, I have no issue with that.

That's fairly expressed. I am thoroughly agnostic on the matter of there being something more interesting than rapid annihilation of the self at death and some form of encompassing conscious system that I'm too puny to perceive.

Spectrum wrote:I have issues with theists who claimed their God is a real and absolutely perfect God or agnostics who are on the fence on such a God.
Point is such a God is claimed to be real and deliver his rule over theists in holy texts where SOME believers are inspired to the extent of killing non-believers and even other believers of their own.
Such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility and these believers do not have any real solid grounds to commit evils in the name of such an illusory God.

I see the issue as being more a social and political one than philosophical. Most of such "believers" don't really believe. Most aren't about to take big risks in life with faith in a Divine Safety Net will help them, yes? It's a social and tribal affiliation. People who believe in patriarchy, homophobia and forming strong social and political affiliations will tend towards religion.

No philosophical logic can touch them because they operate by social logic. That is, it is logical for them to align themselves with immensely powerful organisations that can provide plentiful social, dating and networking possibilities. The price of admission is just not to question anything and then the keys to this gated wonderland of social opportunity can be yours.

Obviously, for philosophical thinkers, the idea of not questioning is akin to not eating.

Steve3007 wrote:Yes, dealing with the knowledge of our own mortality appears to be one of the functions of religion. But another one, perhaps even more important, is tribalism.

...going back to my mention of tribalism above, I still think that religion is a symptom, not a cause. It is one of the most prominent manifestations of our tribalism - our need to belong and to define our identity by the group to which we feel we are affiliated. That (we tend to think) is what gives us our immortality.

As I had demonstrated elsewhere, from empirical evidences of nature, the inferred 'purpose' of all living things is to 'live' i.e. to strive to survive [seemingly at all costs] at least till the inevitable.

This striving to survive generate two type of drives, i.e.

• 1. Critical drives
  2. General drives

1. Critical drives
The turbulence and eddies in combination with other existential forces created a 'zombie parasite' that results in an existential crisis, i.e. a critical drives that compel the individual[s] to cling to religions to soothe the pulsating existential angst.

There are other basic and critical drives as reflected in the bottom-most levels within Maslow's hierarchy of needs, e.g. hunger, sex, security etc.

2. General drives
There are many general existential drives that are secondary to survival [therefrom preservation of the species].
The early human survives in small groups [5-10] which would hardly qualify as a tribe.

I would define a 'tribe' as a group [one group or spread out in smaller groups] with an least 100 people. Evolutionary psychology wise, tribalism is a general trait which has survival values and many other advantages in comparison to individual family groups.
As such tribalism is not the root cause of religion. Tribalism is influenced primarily by genetics, i.e. humans of the same genetics features, etc.

Religion is also not a root cause [sympton] of tribalism.
Religion arose to deal with an existential crisis, angst, etc. of the individual[s].

Tribalism which is a separate existential impulse influence believers to form groups, i.e. tribes and this are actually pseudo-tribes and not the original genetic-based tribes.
You will note religions [organized or 'tribal'] are present are breaking at the seams and believers are moving away to soothe their existential angst on a spiritual basis to have a personal connection with their God.

So, I don't know, maybe your idea of promoting this "God is impossible" meme might work. But I doubt it. Because those evil parts of those holy texts are not the cause. They are a symptom. I don't think you will ever get rid of the tribalism, and the consequent feelings of alienation by people who feel that they are not living among their own tribe, which is (it seems to me) a major root cause of evils done supposedly in the name of religion.

As I had stated the root of religion and theism is not tribalism, but rather the theistic/religious impulse is parallel [whilst more forceful] with tribalism.

The evil acts committed by SOME believers are directly inspired by the doctrines in holy texts from a God [illusory and impossible] which is driven by an existential crisis [compelled by a 'zombie parasite'] that has nothing to do with tribalism.
I don't deny tribalism could be involved, but it is secondary when believers of the same religions act together.

The theoretical test is, get rid of all the religions and their God, there will be no more religion-based acts of evil, terror and violence. Humans, being potentially evil will continue to commit evil acts but in this test, no humans will be able to commit evil in God's name when God is acknowledged as an impossibility, non-starter and moot.

I suspect it's a root cause that also links those evils to things, such as the recent Las Vegas shooting, that have nothing to do with religion. I don't know, but I suspect the shooter in that case was able to kill hundreds of people because he had a similar sense of alienation which disconnected him from those people and destroyed empathy. We humans have a great ability to switch our empathy on and off. We have a great ability, in the "right" circumstances, to objectify the stranger.

As I had always stated, I divide all evil acts by humans into two main categories, i.e.

• 1. Secular and
  2. Religion/theistic.

Both must be addressed seriously and dealt appropriately from the level of their proximate root causes.

I believe the evils acts from both secular and religious/theistic are reducible to one ultimate root cause, i.e. the striving to survival -therefrom preservation species.

In the case of the Las Vegas shooter, I don't believe it has any link to tribalism and alienation.
It is most like to be this streak of impulse, i.e.

• 1. The drive for survival at all costs,
  2. A percentile of people are imbue with high hopes, optimism and risk takers [gamblers].
  3. This is why the Las Vegas shooter is influenced towards and he got addicted.
  4. Addiction [inclinations] is another survival traits but that shooter got addicted to something negative and dangerous, i.e. gambling where are odds by default are against him.
  5. When he had lost in hopes and risk turn bad, his anger and his kill response is triggered and he took it out on that crowd for perhaps some personal grudge or etc.

If it was for tribalism sake, he could easily has joined any group for pseudo-tribalism sake.

I’m curious. Is anyone taking Spectrum’s nonsense seriously? His diatribe is so irrational that to refute it would give it validation it doesn’t deserve.