'God' is Impossible

I understand what you are saying. Here is what I am saying. Say you wanted to prove to someone, who does not understand special realitivity, that light will red shift with velocity away from an observer.

You can show them all tons of red shift data, which is proof enough for the experts. But since the person, we need to prove this to, does not understand the basics of special relativity so they can understand the proof, we can't prove anything to him even if it is true. The best we can do is manipulate his emotions, with a group hug, so he will memorize our claim. He still doesn't understand the proof. But he can recite the group hand-shake using faith in its experts.

If he really wanted proof but was not willing or able to understand special reality, this gets harder to do. How can you prove special relativity to someone who doesn't even understand it. it all sounds like it is made up to him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a science forum, not a forum for the blind and mentally challenged, don't give him excuses for posting un-supported gibberish without backing it up with evidence,

Seriously?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If this thread doesn't get closed down im seriously considering opening up a duplicate thread in reverse order in the general philosophy forum, Titled "God Exist, it's impossible for him not to"

Surey I will find the same people popping up to give me back up with my claims? you and dy i expect.

Or do we only support gibberish if it coincides with our own subscriptions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Believers may not wish to address the proof and haven't because their strong belief has been so deeply grooved into their brain wiring that it constantly and directly surfaces, bypassing reason, rational, and logic completely, causing 'neglect' and flooding the mind with the 'sure' identification of the notion and thus making them immune to change.

 

I'm not entirely sure what relevance that has to the God issue. Nor am I convinced that it's true. It definitely needs additional explanation and justification.

What does the phrase "first and fundamental" mean? Why must "First Being" (in caps, presumably meant as a synonym for 'God') be thought of as "compositional"?

I'll point out that Neoplatonism (both Christian and Pagan) had similar intuitions about the God-head being unitary and one. So they imagined it as the primordial One, above and beyond all words and concepts. Then they imagined multiplicity kind of flowing out of the One by emanation, through a succession of levels of being or manifestations that they termed 'hypostases'. The highest of these were the divine mind and the eternal Platonic forms. The lowest was the flawed and imperfect world of matter that we humans inhabit, the realm of ever-present flux and change. In this scheme, mankind represents kind of a microcosm since we possess our own subjective minds and intuitions of eternity through our awareness of universal concepts. The religious goal was to ascend through the hypostases (which correspond to higher states of consciousness) and ultimately to merge back into, or (for the Christian Neoplatonists) at least bask in the beatific vision of the primordial One.

Nobody's posted any proofs in this thread yet.

I'm not entirely sure what your philosophical concerns are. But it appears that you are trying to insist that God must be One, totally without parts, indivisible and unitary. If that's your view then the fact that the Neoplatonists created an arguably theistic vision around that intuition seems to be evidence that it doesn't necessarily render theism impossible.

 

This thread is based on a fundamentally irrational idea.

Which is that a supposition (God is supposed to be yada yada) can be proved or disproved, or shown to be an impossibility.

It's impossible to prove or disprove a supposed idea is an impossible idea. What if God isn't like a definition that humans made? Can anyone prove this?

 

:fart:

 

The point I was making is proof is easier to understand when the prerequisites required for the proof are met. In the debate between science and religion, each wants proof in their own language. This can lead to proof problems. You can't prove science using scripture since that is not the correct prerequisite. Science has it's own rules of proof.

Say we had a biologists and physicists. Each is a specialty science an both are highly qualified in their fields. The best proof for a subtle physics phenomena uses physics ideas. Say, on the other hand, the biologists wanted the physicists to prove the phenomena to him. However, the physicist can only use biology concepts like genes and DNA to prove quantum theory. It can not be proven since we lack the skill set needed to see that proof. To the biologists quantum theory can't be proven using what they want as the proof.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Sci on this point, at least so far as it relates to the common conception of God as a creator who possesses all of the "know-how" to construct a vast and complex physical reality such as the universe in which we find ourselves. Such a being would at the very least be composed of the information that is necessary to formulate all the laws of physics as well as the ability to create physicality (either out of nothingness or perhaps more likely by adapting parts of itself).

The proposed existence of a being that is more complex, more powerful and more infinite (more comprehensively so, at least) than the universe itself is an order of magnitude more problematic than the existence of the universe itself when it comes to the question of how and why it exists. Many theists tend to invoke God to explain where the universe came from but in doing so they create an even bigger conundrum. The fundamental philosophical question of why there is something instead of nothing simply becomes "why is there God instead of nothing?", and suddenly we have to account not just for the complexity of physical reality but for the even greater complexity of a being who supposedly created it all. Not only that, in most cases we have to somehow account for the fact that this being has a personality as well (which is yet another compositional element).

 

Why do you have to account for all this?

 

I guess if you're not interested in comprehensive philosophical inquiry, you don't.

 

And that's the problem and the source, imagining something into 'existence' which could not be.

'God' is just a word latched onto, meaning 'stop', just as 'Consciousness' is a word given a new meaning as floating way out of its context. These simplistic notions were doomed from their inception because they halted there as but only larger questions, answering nothing, and even presenting contradiction.


Must there must be a super intelligence responsible for existence?

Then there must be a Super Intelligence responsible for existence of the super intelligence responsible for existence… and so on.

Never switch horses in the middle of a stream of proposition.

 

You have provided 0 evidence for your claim of "God is impossible"

 

Hard to take, isn't it?

Unrefuted.


I also have 'nothing' evidence.

 

Amen to that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And "Amen" to the glorious but failed notion that life requires Life which had to then logically require LIFE before, and so on, from LIFE coming from LIFE,… for it never was an answer. Never trade horses underwater.

 

0 Evidence, un-supported Claim. Bunk.

 

That's the extent of your total refutation?

 

Im yet to see any evidence to even begin to refute it, you have provided no evidence to support your claims yet.

 

It seems to me that is a fair analogy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!