'God' is Impossible

So you're still refusing to answer my original question (while repeating your request that I answer your subsequent question) on the basis that you think it is meaningless, even though you have failed to demonstrate why you think that to be the case?

Fine. Let's play the answer a question with a question game and see if we can lay the groundwork for the kind of fruitful discussion that you seem to want to engage me in (I don't think it's very likely). Why is my question not meaningful?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time is a spacial difference, a difference of spaces, seen as movement.

Thoughts themselves exist and are natural, too. Their subjects don't necessarily exist in reality.

We don't object at all, for there is understanding of how they come to be. We analyze their subject as matching reality or not.

Introspection alone cannot be the entire gospel but must be informed by outside reality and information such as shown by science. This all comes into philosophy as information for thought, logic, and reason. Morality came from humans, predating Moses and the notions of God granting it. Stealing naturally didn't go over well, for example, nor other personal affronts, and this came to codified into civil laws.

We observe what is, rather than what might-be, ought-to-be, and could-be and note how complexity operates in what actually is. There is no support for what could-be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does the Universe have a beginning?
Does it begin, end, and begin again?

Why not?

Secondly, how, and why, do humans fall into delusion?

You frequently comment on how humans are not being humble enough, how they think themselves too important. This certainly comes across as an objection to the beliefs that some people (such as some theists) hold.

This still means that science gets the upper hand, effectively making introspection irrelevant.

Explain why stealing or personal affronts didn't go over well. After all, stealing and personal affronts are a matter of introspection, not of extraspection (such a conducted by science).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Onto Existence Itself…

2. There is no other source available for existence but that of a partial and balanced distribution of nonexistence as positive, negative, and neutral elementals as ‘sum-things’ making for somethings. And no one can name any other source, so that’s it: nothing.

Remember that these particles are already ‘elemental’, at least penultimately so, such as electrons/positrons, quarks/antiquarks, and photons, and they do show a paired balance of polarity (charge), matter state, or as neutrality contained (for the energy particle)—and so there is really no “more original” stockpile available to be called upon to make these out of.

Nor can there be an infinite regress of smaller and smaller, more and more basic things within things for then the cascade would take forever to traverse and not anything could or would happen.

Nor could these limited but specifically particular forms have been around forever, all made and defined as such without ever having been made and defined in a first place that never was, for they are too limited and particular, having a certain spin, mass, size, polarity, matter state, location, and other properties, plus their overall count of amount.

There are only two stable and charged matter particles (and their antiparticles), the electron and the proton, with no stable neutral matter particle possible, and only one stable neutral energy particles possible, the photon, with no stable charged energy particles possible. These are clues to how the Cosmos must be.

While forever stuff would indeed also indicate that the Cosmos cannot be other than it is, it is an incomplete answer, for it doesn’t specify the Why of existence.

As cause and effect cannot go on forever beneath, the buck must stop at an equation, the zero-balance.

Furthermore, something from nothing is actually seen happening in a cylinder in which everything has been pumped out of. (BBC series on YouTube: Everything and Nothing) This, combined with the noted balance of opposites and there being no other source for existence leads to ‘nothing’ having to be the fundamental ground-state of all.

‘Nothing’ is not God and it is even His complete opposite, so again, ‘God’ is not possible as fundamental and creating all else.

(As for a Big Bang outpouring, if there was such… if one waits long enough—and there is eternity, then large but low probability events can occur.)

 

I did not say it was meaningless.

"Why does God exist?" simply seems like a very outlandish question to me and I would like to know why someone would ask it (other than sheer curiosity) and within what conceptual framework it can be asked.

I have never asked that question.

 

The Cosmos has no beginning or end, which leads to another disproof.

Localities within the Cosmos can come and go or change.

Beginnings and ends are an anathema to the All, for then it wouldn’t be the All, having something outside it or prior to it.

The wishes are comforting and become wired, grooved, and attended by strong emotion, which bypasses rationality, it having a direct path into consciousness.

They do, but they can’t help it until wider learning takes place, if it can.

All information should be used, plus we still have to process it internally. It’s just that we can’t make everything out of introspection and felt sensation alone without considering any external information. The felt states of being are a “second story” told upon the first floor of the neurological states beneath, although there is a correlation and a correspondence, like bonding hormones to feelings of attachment.

(They are based on the externals of society operating well.)

Preachers tell us that any universal moral standards can only come from one source—their particular God. Otherwise standards would be relative, depending on culture and differing across cultures and individuals. However, the majority of human beings from all cultures and all religions or no religion agree on a common set of moral standards.

Universal norms exist. As anthropologist Solomon Asch has noted, "We do not know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue."

While we live in a society of law, much of what we do is not constrained by law but performed voluntarily. For example, we have many opportunities to cheat and steal in situations where the chance of being caught is negligible, yet most of us do not cheat and steal. While the Golden Rule is not usually obeyed to the letter, we generally do not try to harm others. Indeed, we are sympathetic when we see a person or animal in distress and take action to provide relief. We stop at auto accidents and render aid. We call the police when we witness a crime. We take care of children, aged parents, and others less fortunate than us. We willingly take on risky jobs, such as in the military or public safety, for the protection of the community.

That stealing from members of your own community is immoral requires no divine revelation. It is revealed by a moment's reflection on the type of society that would exist if everyone stole from one another. If lying were considered a virtue instead of truth telling, communication would become impossible. Mothers have loved their children since before mammals walked the Earth?—for obvious evolutionary reasons. The only precepts unique to religions are those telling us to not to question their dogma.

— from Victor Stenger

 

perhaps you just need to read it

which I explained straight off the bat is simply another facet of reductionist thought

I'll just copy/paste from now on :

# Its more that classifying things strictly in terms of systems and their constituents doesn't define things essentially above their constituents

read above.

If you still don't understand, repeat.

ditto above

still waiting for you to comprehend that until you move beyond constituents (whether we call them matter ... or even non-matter if we want to get all word salady) and the systems they appear in, you are not moving beyond reductionist thinking

that you lack comprehension skills

copy/paste# 2

Its more that classifying things strictly in terms of systems and their constituents doesn't define things essentially above their constituents

Why must everything be reducible (apart from a desperate need to classify everything according to reductionist doctrine?)

Systems may be contingent on god, but god is not a system, simply because there are no "parts" that contribute to his functioning.

The same could be said about consciousness of the unconditioned living entity (as opposed to the conditioned living entity that accepts various layers, which can be classified, in order to grant ephemeral existence in the pursuit of temporary desire in a temporary world) .

IOW its the nature of consciousness that systems are contingent on it (or subsist off it) , and not vice versa.

perhaps you could use words like behavior or desire or will or qualities, but they are not really applicable to your mode of thinking since they don't exist within isolation (and hence cannot be be systematic) .

For instance while we could go on about what are the different qualities that make up "beauty" in a person, the list would be neither complete nor would a composition of all such mentioned qualities grant a result that is necessarily beautiful.

IOW you can't describe the system that beauty operates out of, no matter what is agreed on for defining the constituents (ie matter or something more word salady like non-matter ... although, on a side note, poetry and analogy has tended to be the more preferred paradigm for such endeavors) ...

There's also a further complication of how qualities can tend to compete or compliment or be dormant or prominent within a subject (like for instance a person may be beautiful but then they get angry ... which may or may not make them more beautiful).

And there is even a further complication when discussing the nature of a subject (ie god) who is the prototype for all sorts, degrees and nuances of consciousness (as well as being omnipotent and omniscient).

IOW the more you look into it, the more it becomes perfectly apparent that calling upon parts in isolation to define a system is not an effective tool for the task.

For instance, a beautiful subject provides us with an array of constituents (generally we would call them qualities) that establish comprehension, as opposed to being contingent on an array of constituents to grant comprehension.

the point is that you are inhibiting discussion by relegating classification and analysis to components of a system.

Its not that god is impossible.

Its that its impossible to define god (as well as many other things too) according by isolating parts to determine how they contribute , in a systematic manner, to the function of a subject (ie reductionism)

 

Answered previously, but this seems to fit well upon the condition of hubris and 'neglect'.

Vainglorious Delusions Writ Large Upon the Cosmos…

WHAT IS MAN (AND WO-MAN) BUT SAPIENS SUPREME

Oh man! What a piece of work, the mind; what noble deeds done and undone in kind. What “Rube Goldberg” inventions heaped upon—in the layers of brains the mind was made upon. What is this sapiens mammal animal, but of some slime and of brutish law. Aye!

Let us ‘neglect’ this state of affairing on the grounds that it is unappealing. So, then…

We are spun of an eternal golden braid, those windings of truth, love, and beauty made from the goodness of purity immortal—the theory of everything’s singular portal. What is man but the special chosen species for whom all the plants grow and the waters reach, for whom the Earth turns ‘round and orbits a nuclear furnace, spreading love’s energy, enabling us to thrive above any and all creation. What is man but the only bloom for which all the 13.7 billions years of evolution and love have occurred in a predetermined random yeast to form and flower such a vainglorious beast.

It’s here on forever’s edge that we meet our destiny, that in our temporary parentheses of eternity we should flourish for just a moment, bidden as the blossoms of perfection’s flower garden. A hundred trillion stars and countless shores were built to light our universal nights explored. Forty million other lower species, too, the All-Might placed about our world, merely for our delight. Our name is writ large on the Heaven’s marquee, as in the supernovae stardust showered from He.

From nothing not He came, no, but, of a naught our own universe was made and ever wrought. A starring role we play in His reality show, every atom spinning round just for us to know, our apish ancestors rising and falling for us to stand upon. Oh man! They lived and died for our lone promise! Every shaft of light shines with us in mind; thus, it beams forth our beginning and our end—in and of God’s hidden and Heavenly shrine.

Oh life! We cherish being, that of ours and thine. We do so much deserve reward beyond this role—and so it is that one’s immortal spirit-soul, that angelic vapour that drives a living being, shall go forth to glory on, behind the scene. We are not merely some mammally organic luck, but purposely evolved on this planet, near a star, in that intended long and winding mindless gestation of slowly drifting time, dust, and selection by death that ever sifted the best from the rest: Sapiens!

(Now why is the soul so ‘true’ and so far with it faith goes? It is only because one so much wishes it to be what knows.)

Earth could not answer; nor the seas that mourn in flowing purple, of their Lord forlorn; nor rolling Heaven, with all his signs reveal’d and hidden by the sleeve of night and morn. Ah, love! Could thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would not we shatter it to bits--and then re-mould it nearer to the heart’s desire! — Omar Khayyam

 

I stand corrected. It seemed clear to me that this was exactly what you were implying.

I ask the question because no-one has logically demonstrated why God is immune to the same age old philosophical question of why there is something instead of nothing. The best I have ever seen anyone do is to simply state that one of his fundamental qualities is that he necessarily exists and that if one does not accept this then one is failing to examine the concept of God as so defined. But to argue that something must exist simply because the quality of necessary existence has been assigned to it just doesn't hold even a single molecule of water. It would be like arguing that one of the qualities of the physical universe is that it is all that exists therefore nothing that is not part of the physical universe can exist. Any criticism of this idea could simply be dealt with by pointing out a failure to examine the concept as so defined. But I wouldn't resort to such silly arguments because I have more intellectual integrity than that.

Why is there something instead of nothing? We've (presumably) been exploring this question since we became capable of pondering such things, and generally we are seeking an explanation for why anything exists at all. The more immediate concern is of course the existence of physical reality. Why is it here, instead of not being here? I have my own thoughts on this (which I have explored rather comprehensively in several other threads). But let's assume that God does exist, remove the physical universe from the equation, and ponder the question again. Obviously God is something (or someone) since if he wasn't we'd have nothing. So again, why is there something instead of nothing? Any defense of the legitimacy of this question is as much about asking someone to demonstrate why it isn't valid as it is about demonstrating that it is, because if you can't demonstrate why it isn't then it is obviously a question that can be legitimately asked.

 

I am inviting everyone to this thread: Why do some people try to discover the origin of the world?

 

Then how is it possible to define God?

What ontological, normative and epistemological status must a definition have in order to be a definition of God?

 

Could you explain this on an example?

Here's a beautiful subject:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

These flowers are beautiful because
1. the particular combination of the shades of the pink color, roundish shapes, against a blue sky comprises things we already consider beautiful;
or
2. ?

 

are the flowers beautiful because shades of pink and round shapes are beautiful or because these flowers lend beauty to such qualities?

 

My point is that if draw up 2, a dozen or a 1000 qualities they don't establish the qualitative picture of the "complete" god.

(On a side note ananta sesa has been doing just that for some time now

The Supreme Lord is one, yet He has prabhava (fully potent) expansions and vaibhava (partially potent) expansions. The Supreme Lord is endowed with at least six unlimited opulences -- absolute wealth, power, beauty, knowledge, fame, and renunciation. With His countless mouths Sri Ananta Sesa is unable to fully describe these opulences. Therefore the Lord is also said to be indescribable, all-pervading, and unmanifest. )

 

Which doesn't explain WHY it is not applicable... merely why it is reductionist. I can bleat all I want how my broken-down car won't start: "it's not moving forward"..."the wheels aren't turning round"... but that won't get me closer to explaining WHY it is not working.

So you're of the school if the person asks for clarification then just say the same thing over and over again??

We moved beyond that quite a while ago - we're actually still waiting for you to explain why such reductionist thinking is not applicable - which you finally try to do further down.

"It's reductionist because... it is reductionist".
Wonderful explanations, LG.

Name something (other than God) that is not reducible or a system... and yes, life is reducible, (e.g. blood, vessels, pumps etc). And please do not confuse incomplete understanding with reason to negate the position.

Then how does god "function"? How does anything "function" without being a system? Name another system that functions without parts, please? Consciousness certainly does... memory is rather key... as is oxygen to the human consciousness, and blood.

Remove brain... consciousness gone.
Remove blood... consciousness gone.
Seeing a trend?

I can accept the contingency of such things as properties/qualities (e.g. height being contingent on a physical object to use a materialistic example)... but these have no functionality in and of themselves. Nor does Will, Desire - which are merely subjective assessments/qualities of inputs.

Surely you can't be arguing that something being subjective negates that thing being systematic??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Further, what do mere qualities have to do with something being a system or not? Is "beauty" a system? No - it is a quality/property - an output of a system, and has no functionality in and of itself.

If your argument is that God is merely a quality/property... then where is its functionality?
The point in the OP is that functionality (to create etc) requires a system.

Lack of description of a system does also not negate it being systematic - only that it is too complex to be adequately described.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Subjectivity iof a system does not negate it from being a system.
And still the issue is that you are talking about qualities... which in and of themselves have no functionality.

The more I look into it, the more you are arguing that the subjectiveness of a system negates it from being a system, rather than just a complex system that is not particularly well understood.

Further, if you wish to argue that God is nothing but Qualities then you will need to argue how mere qualities can be functional.
Otherwise I am not sure why you are discussing mere qualities, unless it is to show how subjective a system can be?

I appreciate your explanation of your position (eventually) but I find it flawed. Your need for God to be (a non-system) appears to be linked to you thinking that complex or subjective systems can not be systematic, or that God is merely qualities.

Impossible to define the precise workings does not negate it from being a system... just one that can not be fully understood.
I know enough about a car's engine to know it is a system... but could not tell you what each individual part does, for example.
But you do seem to grant complexity an odd transformation into something less tangible.

 

I can't quite tell the difference.

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!

These things are in shades of pink and round, but I wouldn't exactly call them beautiful.

 

How can a thing lend beauty to certain qualities??

Without the shades of pink and round shapes there would be no flowers to begin with.


Or do you mean a difference like
"This dress looks nice on you"
vs.
"You look nice in this dress" -?


Or, compare flowers in natural colors, and flowers in SciWriter's LSD colors.
His look ugly! Why?


If we argue that there are qualities, and when they are arranged in a particular manner, they produce beauty - is this an accurate description of what you are proposing?

 

Re Systems -

Considering something a "system" is a meta-description, a particular concept about how a phenomenon is and functions.

Conceptualizing phenomena as "systems" has become prominent in the recent decades (although the idea goes back to at least the Ancient Greeks).

But we must bear in mind that the system concept is a meta-level description, and as such, it says something primarily about the one making the statement that something is a system, rather than about said thing itself.

 

are you deaf?
If something cannot be reduced to constituents that interact in a system, you obviosuly have the wrong tool for the job

What part of the statement don't you understand?
Or are you simply having trouble with the concept that reductionism doesn't have a monopoly on all knowledge based claims?

so you are willing to concede that systems are merely a facet of reductionism?

Well actually I said that reductionism requires that a subject be capable of being fragmented down.
While it works a treat in many areas, it certainly falls flat on its face in many others.
This happens to be one of them.

Life is certainly not reducible to your crude analysis since all the blood, vessels and pumps of the world cannot sustain it or even manifest it in the recently deceased (IOW you are clearly missing a key element in your reduction of life to the bare elements)

If you have incomplete understanding, there is certainly no reason not to negate your position (unless you want to marry post dated rain cheques with empiricism ... )

Just try and explain the system that consciousness (that is the nature of being alive) operates in and I can guarantee I can drive semi trailers through your system.

now try the reverse
(in the absence of consciousness of course)
Add a brain
Add blood

Seeing a trend?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but what I am trying to say is that even if we simply work within the subjective parameters of an individuals sense of beauty, if one compiles a specific list of everything that they indicate contributes to beauty, it will be incomplete ... and in fact it probably wouldn't be too difficult to indicate something that is ugly yet possessing those qualities.

IOW the attempt to reduce beauty to an essence or core of essential qualities is doomed from the onset

You were looking for an alternative for material (or even the salady non-material) in your quest for constituents for a system.

I suggested that you would be better off to drop the whole system thing, so you instead asked what one could call the constituents in the absence of a system

You :What word would you use to define/describe what he does if he is NOT a system?

IOW if you want to bring back the whole "system" schmozzle you might be better off going back and reading previous posts

I didn't say that god is a quality.
I said that god has qualities, so you could call them constituents (of a sort).

the problem is (at least for you) that they don't exist in a framework of systems since an irreducible subject or category is necessarily unique.

Requires it?
By who?
An omnipotent subject or a subject of limited potency?

Either way, the system fails and hence reductionist thought is a sloppy tool for the job.

No need to step outside of the subjectivity of an individual to clearly show how it fails

You are trying to say that beauty, or any other of a zillion qualities that draw circles around reductionist thought, has no function?

Already mentioned.
No need to step outside the subjectiveness of it.
For instance signal said that pinkness and roundness of the flowers is what makes them beautiful.
Do you think she thinks all pink and round things are beautiful?
Or do you think that the flowers, due to their irreducible nature of beauty (at least in her opinion) lent beauty to roundness and pinkness?

I don't understand what you are talking about.
I can't begin to understand how a person can conceive of qualities not being functional

 

Its more that because these flowers are pink and round that one describes pink and round as being qualities of beauty.

IOW I am sure that you don't mean to say that pink and roundness grant universal beauty to all things

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

something like that, yes

because they are pink and round I guess

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am proposing that it is incomplete at best (and misleading at worst)