God is an Impossibility

[Karpel Tunnel]

Faith always implies doubt. Where there is certainty, there's no need for faith.

Actually I would say that faith is a decision - or a series of decisions, really, and knowledge is a type of conclusion. They are entirely different 'things'.

As conscious products of the cognitive unconscious, I don't think they are entirely different. But knowledge is always limited whereas faith recognizes the infinite that encompasses it and is present within it.

I am not sure what that means.

I do see overlap with decisions and conclusions. But conclusions tend to be about weighing and reasoning one's way to a belief. Decisions it seem to me are not about truth per se. Regardless of what one might way, I decide to have attitude X. It's more a desire.

Of course when individual Abrahamists (since they are the ones who focus on faith and counterpose it to belief and knowledge) use faith and belief and knowledge, they are all over the place.

[Prismatic567]

“As stated I am not making any claim of absolute certainty, it is the theists [advanced] who make the claim.”

The proposition that God is only relatively impossible is self contradictory. If you’re admitting that you don’t know if God is impossible, I can accept that.

The proposition is not 'God is only relatively impossible.'
Note again,
The proposition is, 'God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically'.

What I had proposed is against the theists' claim,
"God exists as real empirically and by whatever."

What I have shown is the theists' claim is CONTRADICTORY, false and illusory, thus 'God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically' for the theists.
Therefore the theists' claim is moot and a non-starter for them, not me.

“ I gave the analogy;
If you claim within basic arithmetics 1+1=7 with absolute certainty I can show you, your claim is false, moot and is a non-starter.
I don't have to claim with absolute certainty, it the basic arithmetic rules that you are wrong in your claim.”

Your argument is in no way analogous to basic arithmetic. If it were, you might have convinced someone beside yourself of the truth of your deduction.

Why not?
I have given another analogy of claiming 'square-circle' exists are real empirically and philosophically.

“Yes, whilst Christians relies of faith, they are relying on faith to insist God is real with "absolute certainty" [in their mind] that God is of absolute perfection which is a contradiction.
Where have you heard a Christian or Muslim claimed 'I am not very sure God exists or not?”

Have you ever listened to a Christian? I have. They frequently talk about their doubts and lack of faith. This goes all the way back to the New Testament Gospels where a guy says to Jesus “I believe; help thou my unbelief.” Your knowledge of Christianity is wafer-thin and inaccurate.

The above is a straw-man.
Yes, naturally there are a small % of Christians who doubt their faith which subsequently is reinforced or they get out of Christianity.
SOME may doubt their faith in one way, but they do not necessarily doubt God exists.

I asked,
Where have you heard the majority of sincere Christian or Muslim in general claimed 'I am not very sure God exists or not?”
Note I added 'sincere' or 'proper' 'in-general' to exclude the minor exceptions.

“I have stated many times, note Descartes' supremely perfect God and others who claimed God is absolute.”

You know you actually might be right about Descartes who after claiming that his method was to doubt everything relied upon the God hypothesis to support the notion that anything exists it outside his mind. Bishop Berkeley's empiricism was the reductio ad absurdum of that way of thinking. On this we seem to agree at the moment. But Descartes hardly represents the be-all-and-end-all of theology. Today, he's more like a cautionary tale we can learn from.

Descartes used 'reason' to justify his absolute certainty God exists as real empirically and philosophically.
The majority of Christians rely on faith to claim absolute certainty.
I note in most debates, those who are aware of Descartes would refer to his theological theories.

Note most lay-Christians, Muslims and other theists would rely on faith and general beliefs to claim absolute certainty God exists as real - to listens and answers their prayers, etc.
If they have heard of Descartes and others from their leaders, they will certainly jump to adopt Descartes', St. Anselm's ontological God, Berkeley's, William Craig's, or etc. God. It cost them nothing [just a matter of changing thoughts] to reinforce their supposedly 'stronger' and 'reasoned' theological belief.

[Fanman]

I gave the analogy;
If you claim within basic arithmetics 1+1=7 with absolute certainty I can show you, your claim is false, moot and is a non-starter.
I don't have to claim with absolute certainty, it the basic arithmetic rules that you are wrong in your claim.

If your argument is analogous to basic arithmetic (as you claim), then it seems patent that you're claiming your argument is an axiom. But further, because of what you've subsequently argued, it seems as though you're claiming that your argument is an axiom in every sense, because you stated (amongst other things) that proofs must be produced to counter-argue. This raises many questions, but what I'll stick with, is how can you claim both that your argument is an axiom and also claim a position of non-certainty? Your arguments in this case seem to be contradictory.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I gave the analogy;
If you claim within basic arithmetics 1+1=7 with absolute certainty I can show you, your claim is false, moot and is a non-starter.
I don't have to claim with absolute certainty, it the basic arithmetic rules that you are wrong in your claim.

If your argument is analogous to basic arithmetic (as you claim), then it seems patent that you're claiming your argument is an axiom. But further, because of what you've subsequently argued, it seems as though you're claiming that your argument is an axiom in every sense, because you stated (amongst other things) that proofs must be produced to counter-argue. This raises many questions, but what I'll stick with, is how can you claim both that your argument is an axiom and also claim a position of non-certainty? Your arguments in this case seem to be contradictory.

I wouldn't say he is saying his argument is an axiom, but he does seem to be saying that the premises in his argument are axioms and that the rules for deduction are as controlled as they are in systems WHERE WE MAKE UP THE AXIOMS and the rules. Which is silly. It is an abstract system without empirical content. The existence of God situation has to do with real or posited as real entities. That is an entirely different situation. Mainly me being fussy about the word axiom.

I think it is very odd he says it is moot. I don't think he knows what that word means.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Felix: thought I'd throw some of my reactions at his response to you.

“As stated I am not making any claim of absolute certainty, it is the theists [advanced] who make the claim.”

The proposition that God is only relatively impossible is self contradictory. If you’re admitting that you don’t know if God is impossible, I can accept that.

The proposition is not 'God is only relatively impossible.'
Note again,

The proposition is, 'God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically'.

One of the things I notice about Prismatic's posts is there is, mixed in with deductive errors, a lot of confusion. God cannot be real empirically and philosophically. That makes no sense. It is as if something could be empirically real but not philosophically real or philosophically real but not emprically real. And, of course, he has never addressed the complicated way Christians actually conceive of God, just the specific description that fits the argument he wants to make.

What I had proposed is against the theists' claim,
"God exists as real empirically and by whatever."

Perhaps a type in that second part, but more confusion. Also, I have never encountered a theist who says the first part of that sentence. There are many theists who think that one can experience God, but their conception is complicated since their God usually has empirical and transcendant aspects.

“ I gave the analogy;
If you claim within basic arithmetics 1+1=7 with absolute certainty I can show you, your claim is false, moot and is a non-starter.
I don't have to claim with absolute certainty, it the basic arithmetic rules that you are wrong in your claim.”

Your argument is in no way analogous to basic arithmetic. If it were, you might have convinced someone beside yourself of the truth of your deduction.

Why not?
I have given another analogy of claiming 'square-circle' exists are real empirically and philosophically.

And this is where we can see that there is an actual cognitive damage. He thinks it is an argument that, in response to you questioning his application of an analogy to arithmatic, he has elsewhere presented an argument to geometry. He makes no attempt to actually defend the use of the analogy, but presents his use elsewhere of another analogy from math as if that somehow strengthens his own use of the other one.

This is not simply a poor argument. He has dealt with the criticism of his analogy many times. He does not understand that analogical arguments can have problems. He does not understand what a defense of such an analogy mght entail.

Where have you heard a Christian or Muslim claimed 'I am not very sure God exists or not?”

Same issue here. All he has to do is google 'when you have doubt' or some similar formulation and 'Christianity' and thousands of sermons, suggestions, confessions and more will appear dealing with Christians who doubt.

I asked,
Where have you heard the majority of sincere Christian or Muslim in general claimed 'I am not very sure God exists or not?”
Note I added 'sincere' or 'proper' 'in-general' to exclude the minor exceptions.

And now he adds in subjective evaluations. If they admit it, they are not sincere or proper. So he can leave them out of his statistics, which he never takes in any case.

My main point above is that we are not simply dealing with problematic arguments, but with a mind that does not undertand some fundamental logic and philosophy and one that does not learn over time.

Further, and perhaps relevant to his latest repetitions, he is taking a binary stance, which literally interprets a summation of theist positions that he has constructed himself and decides that in that form it must be false. Let's say he is actually correct. There still could be a deity that can be experienced that is not absolutely perfect. So the theists would be in the main correct.

He uses an idiosyncratic 'theist position on God' as THE theist position on God. Attempts to prove this particular definition is false and then acts as if he has now demonstrated anything about reality. His position has not come anywhere near dealing with the possible existence of a diety, even one that is, in the main, similar to what some or most theists think. He just transfered SOME of their ways of describing God, into a single statement taken mathematically, rather than expressively, and draws a conclusion from this about reality. Apart from being utterly unscientific, even anti-scientific, the binary confusion means the whole project is utterly meaningless.

[Fanman]

KT,

I wouldn't say he is saying his argument is an axiom, but he does seem to be saying that the premises in his argument are axioms and that the rules for deduction are as controlled as they are in systems WHERE WE MAKE UP THE AXIOMS and the rules. Which is silly. It is an abstract system without empirical content. The existence of God situation has to do with real or posited as real entities. That is an entirely different situation. Mainly me being fussy about the word axiom.

I think it is very odd he says it is moot. I don't think he knows what that word means.

I thought about it a lot before using the word “axiom” to describe how Prismatic possibly perceives his argument. I considered whether there was, on his part, any admission of uncertainty or self-questioning about his claim(s), and the fact that he believes that the God debate, because of his argument, is now irrelevant - his arithmetic analogy was the clincher. Given these factors (and his arguments in general), I thought there were enough reasons to claim that he believed his argument was an axiom in every sense of the word.

So apart from on this point, I agree with what you say, as I'm hesitant to retract my claim just yet. I'm not going to say that you are wrong, because I don't think you are and I could be mistaken, but Prismatic believes that his argument demonstrates that it is impossible for God to exist. So as you say, he must at least believe that the premises are axioms, even if he doesn't understand that, or believe that the argument in totality is.

You have every right to be fussy about the use of the word “axiom”, it is not something to be said lightly, but I feel it is in the right direction of what he's claiming here, even if it's not exactly that. He will have to clarify what he means by moot.

[felix dakat]

I am not sure what that means.

I do see overlap with decisions and conclusions. But conclusions tend to be about weighing and reasoning one's way to a belief. Decisions it seem to me are not about truth per se. Regardless of what one might way, I decide to have attitude X. It's more a desire.

Of course when individual Abrahamists (since they are the ones who focus on faith and counterpose it to belief and knowledge) use faith and belief and knowledge, they are all over the place.

I meant that, while I don’t disagree with your phenomenological description, experiences of knowledge and faith rest upon processes that cognitive science tells us are estimated to be around 95% unconscious. Traditional stories had ways of representing this situation that can now be read metaphorically. Concerning knowledge there’s the story of Socrates drawing innate knowledge derived from a past life from a boy who doesn't know that he knows. Concerning faith there are many stories in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament about prophets being called to faith by God against their will--an apt image for the fateful action of the unconscious psyche on the life of the individual.

Faith as a decision to assent to a creedal proposition is a superficial form of Christianity which became prevalent in the 4th century when it became a state religion. Originally Christian faith was about putting trust in a person, God’s messiah, Jesus.

In contrast to radical pragmatists like Rorty, I do have faith that some sort of ultimate reality exists (or is rather being itself), though it is unknowable as it is in itself. Ultimate reality can be construed theistically or atheistically with varying degrees of persuasiveness depending on the skill of the construer. It is the object of scientific and philosophical faith ever pursued and never achieved with finality. So, it seems to me, fully consistent with agnosticism, to suppose that God is at least possible.

The traditional definitions of God with so many omni-attributes, I take to be a metaphor for ultimate reality which is infinitely beyond our finite minds.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Perfect=devoid of malice and predatory psychology?