It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empirical proof, or empirical evidence, is information that is gathered through observation or experimentation and is used to support or disprove a hypothesis or claim. It is a key part of the scientific method and is also used in other fields, such as epistemology and law.

The point is 'prove' and 'proof' are common words and there is a need to specify the context to avoid confusion.

There is no "proof" in science:

ChatGPT: Can science provide incontrovertible proof?

In science, the idea of "incontrovertible proof" is not typically a goal, as the nature of scientific inquiry is inherently open to revision and updates based on new evidence. Science is not concerned with proving something in an absolute, unchangeable sense, but rather with gathering evidence that strongly supports or contradicts hypotheses, and refining theories over time based on this evidence.
...
In short, science provides extremely strong support for certain theories, but it doesn’t aim for absolute, incontrovertible proof. Instead, it builds an evolving understanding of the natural world, always ready to adapt when new, credible evidence emerges.

It is absolutely not recommended to use the term "proof" in the context of science, because it does not even exist:

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

The Logic of Science. Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing.

Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

In spite of all the literature warning not to use the term "proof" in the context of science, there are still lots of people doing that anyway. They usually do that to spread their misconceptions about science.

There is no 'Allah-sent' dictionary for the absolute meaning of words.
Whatever is the meaning of a word [lexicography] is based on its popularity of use.
The word 'proof' is a very common word and its general meaning:
"a fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/proof
which is not confined to mathematics and is accepted by a large % of people.

You are very deceptive in slipping the word "incontrovertible" which I had never mentioned in this case at all.

This is a philosophy forum,
are you familiar with the 'Principle of Charity" [philosophy]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

So, the word 'proof' can be used wherever it is relevant within the specific context.
Generally, whenever the term 'proof' is used, it is always associated with a specific context or topic.

[godelian]

You are very deceptive in slipping the word "incontrovertible" which I had never mentioned in this case at all.

Again, since you are clearly not proving anything, what exactly is the point of your word salad?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are very deceptive in slipping the word "incontrovertible" which I had never mentioned in this case at all.

Again, since you are clearly not proving anything, what exactly is the point of your word salad?

I don't give a damn on this matter re 'proof'.
I will continue to use it and providing the necessary contexts.

[godelian]

You are very deceptive in slipping the word "incontrovertible" which I had never mentioned in this case at all.

Again, since you are clearly not proving anything, what exactly is the point of your word salad?

I don't give a damn on this matter re 'proof'.
I will continue to use it and providing the necessary contexts.

You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics. You have not provided that incontrovertible argument. In response you just invent another word salad. Do you really hope to convince anybody with your proof by word salad?

[promethean75]

"You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics."

Yeah, but you can't do that either with the converse; you couldn't say it's impossible for a universe to exist without god, and any set of arguments you created to demonstrate that a god must exist could be a ceasar word salad for all we know.

[godelian]

"You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics."

Yeah, but you can't do that either with the converse; you couldn't say it's impossible for a universe to exist without god, and any set of arguments you created to demonstrate that a god must exist could be a ceasar word salad for all we know.

When we reach the limits of rationality, such as by asking ourselves, What could possibly be the meaning of life? Why are we even here? Is there a God? there is still the possibility of spirituality. The option is there.

It works for me. It works for a whole bunch of other people. It doesn't work, however, for people who do not believe that it works.

I feel sorry for these people because one day they may end up deeply depressed, hoping to medicate themselves out of the black hole that they are in, but in fact, not even, because hope is a spiritual and not a rational activity.

A lot of these people are doomed. They are often an accident waiting to happen, and just one life-changing event away from a personal Armageddon.

We could donate a bit of money to the suicide helpline, hoping that its volunteers can give these people hope, but we all know that this is in fact also hopeless. There is no hope for people who do not believe in hope.

[Gary Childress]

"You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics."

Yeah, but you can't do that either with the converse; you couldn't say it's impossible for a universe to exist without god, and any set of arguments you created to demonstrate that a god must exist could be a ceasar word salad for all we know.

When we reach the limits of rationality, such as by asking ourselves, What could possibly be the meaning of life? Why are we even here? Is there a God? there is still the possibility of spirituality. The option is there.

It works for me. It works for a whole bunch of other people. It doesn't work, however, for people who do not believe that it works.

I feel sorry for these people because one day they may end up deeply depressed, hoping to medicate themselves out of the black hole that they are in, but in fact, not even, because hope is a spiritual and not a rational activity.

A lot of these people are doomed. They are often an accident waiting to happen, and just one life-changing event away from a personal Armageddon.

We could donate a bit of money to the suicide helpline, hoping that its volunteers can give these people hope, but we all know that this is in fact also hopeless. There is no hope for people who do not believe in hope.

Religious people get depressed too. Religion is not a stop gap against depression nor a panacea for it.

[godelian]

Religious people get depressed too. Religion is not a stop gap against depression nor a panacea for it.

Indeed, it is not for people who believe that it is not.

Disbelief in matters of spirituality is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even in sports it is often like that. If you don't believe that you can do it, then don't be surprised that you can't.

It works for me.

I am stubbornly deaf and blind to statements that it may not work, because believing that it does not work is exactly what will make it fail to work.

[seeds]

All of this nonsense is just another instance of you proving to me that you are one of the most deceptive and dishonest denizens of a philosophy forum I have ever come across.

Indeed, it speaks volumes regarding the effect that reading and worshiping Kant has had on your morality.

I have never presented merely my syllogism alone without the relevant supporting notes in the three threads.
That you merely presented my syllogism for ChatGpt to comment, confirmed "to me that you are one of the most deceptive and dishonest denizens of a philosophy forum I have ever come across."

Wow! ---> an elementary school playground comeback.

Well-done, little V, I stand humbled and in awe of your rapier wit.

And in regard to your syllogism needing "relevant supporting notes,"...

...a few years back, you seemed to imply that all that was needed was for someone to disprove your syllogism,...

Note my argument is a short one;

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

All you need is to be prove P1 or P2 is false.

...to which I say that "P2" has been "resoundingly" disproven, not only by me and other forum members, but also by ChatGPT.

And if you continue to insist that everyone is misunderstanding your stance because you were only meaning for your argument to apply to "certain theists," then you only have yourself to blame for devising a syllogism that should have been more specific in who and what it was pertaining to.

Again, your more recent iteration of your basically unchanged syllogism should have been worded as follows...

• P1. Many theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for a "perfect" God to exist as real.

...in order to minimize the confusion.

The qualification is not a new thing, it is included in Thread 2.

Are you talking about the thread that you started on June 10th of 2023 that, as of January 3rd of 2025, contained 10 edits?

How close was it to the most recent editing date (January 3, 2025) that the following "qualification" appeared in your 2023 OP?...

This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

Again, how close to that January 2025 edit date did that "qualification" appear in that June 2023 OP???

In my first OP, there was a confusion...

Yes, starting with (and by) your faulty (over-reaching) syllogism.

...where some theists claimed they do not insist their God is absolutely perfect, which I agree...

Yes, of which I was one of the most critical of those theists.

And there you are in the above quote using the term - "some theists," and trying to now pretend that it was somehow obvious in your initial post and syllogism that you were merely referring to "some theists."

And it is laughable to think that you have ever "agreed" with any of us on this issue (or any other issue, for that matter).

...So I raised a new thread-2 to confine the argument to theists who claim God is absolutely perfect which is related to the Abrahamic theists.

Again, are you talking about the thread that you retroactively edited 10 times over a 19-month period in order to sneakily give the false impression that your interlocutor's subsequent counter arguments had already been addressed in your OP?

And, again, when you say that your "God is an impossibility to be real" argument is limited to the proponents of the Abrahamic religion, are we then to assume that you are open to the possibility that the Greek, Hindu, and Pagan gods might indeed be real?

We may be a bunch of lunatics here in the PM asylum, but we're not idiots who can't recognize when someone is desperately trying to salvage a failed argument that he has invested (and continues to invest) so much time and energy into.

For philosophy sake, it would be interesting for you to submit to 'your' ChatGpt my syllogism plus the comments by my ChatGpt [the 4 links] above and ask for your ChatGpt to comments.
It is easy, i.e. they are merely links which your ChatGpt could read easily.
I am very interested to read the comments from your ChatGpt.

First of all, unless you have purchased a subscription to a higher version of ChatGPT, then we're both talking to the same ChatGPT.

And secondly, it is precisely for philosophy's sake that I am not going to torture ChatGPT's algorithms with your dubious defense of something that has already been thoroughly refuted and debunked - for the umpteenth time - by this...

"If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence."

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

And, again, when you say that your "God is an impossibility to be real" argument is limited to the proponents of the Abrahamic religion, are we then to assume that you are open to the possibility that the Greek, Hindu, and Pagan gods might indeed be real?

Most of the above in your post above are merely nagging complains that are toothless.

It is obvious when the reference to P1 and P2, where necessary, has to be accompanied by their relevant detailed justifications.

Read again my post:

viewtopic.php?p=749738#p749738
As for those who do not claimed their God is absolutely I have a separate argument for it.
I am not too bothered with any god that is not 'Absolutely Perfect in terms of OMNI-whatever'; such an imperfect god would be inferior to the absolutely perfect God, where the absolutely perfect God could easily force the imperfect God to eat his shit.

My concern is to refute and debunk those >5 billion theists who claim their God is absolutely perfect; especially to defang and weaned-off the God of "the religion of peace" which currently is motivating believers to cut non-believers into pieces.

I have a separate argument to refute God-in-general as real

For philosophy sake, it would be interesting for you to submit to 'your' ChatGpt my syllogism plus the comments by my ChatGpt [the 4 links] above and ask for your ChatGpt to comments.
It is easy, i.e. they are merely links which your ChatGpt could read easily.
I am very interested to read the comments from your ChatGpt.

First of all, unless you have purchased a subscription to a higher version of ChatGPT, then we're both talking to the same ChatGPT.

Nope.
Mine is the free version.

My point is the moment you ask ChatGpt [or any AI] a question [the variables therein], it takes on a distinct personality that is align with that of yours and the way you ask question.
Somehow AI will detect the understanding and intellectual level in relation to the topic.
This is why AI will give inconsistent answers to different person even on the same question.

And secondly, it is precisely for philosophy's sake that I am not going to torture ChatGPT's algorithms with your dubious defense of something that has already been thoroughly refuted and debunked - for the umpteenth time - by this...

"If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence."

_______

The above is a strawman.

It is only valid if there are no conditions to the above, then anything goes.

But in my case,
"It is Impossible for God to Be Real" and I specify what is meant to be real.
Anything outside this defined 'reality' is not real, i.e. false.
To insist God is real outside the realm of reality is delusional.

This is why I insist you check with 'your' ChatGpt by presenting my whole argument.
Do it, it is not tedious. Just post the links and ask your ChatGpt to critique it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, since you are clearly not proving anything, what exactly is the point of your word salad?

I don't give a damn on this matter re 'proof'.
I will continue to use it and providing the necessary contexts.

You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics. You have not provided that incontrovertible argument. In response you just invent another word salad. Do you really hope to convince anybody with your proof by word salad?

You are lost.

I presented my thesis:
"It is Impossible for God to Be Real"
meaning,
it is impossible within the condition of being real.
I have explained what is meant by 'real'.
The gold standard of reality is the rated scientific-antirealism-FS, the God-FS has negligible credibility and objectivity [as rated], thus whatever it claims is 'unreal' and false.

Say,
it is impossible for 1+1=3;
the majority of people will agree with that, but to be rigorous and serious,
it is only impossible within the rules of the Arithmetic Framework and System [FS].

In the case of the synergy-FS, 1+1=3 is a possibility.

What is possible within any non-empirical-FS ultimately is impossible within the empirically driven-science-FS.

So, the principle is;
'what is impossible within any specific FS' means the thesis has variables which are beyond the scope of the specified FS.

"Incontrovertibility" in mathematics is only valid and meaningful within the Mathematics FS. Outside mathematics, it has no authority of "Incontrovertibility" at all beyond the Mathematics FS.

[godelian]

I don't give a damn on this matter re 'proof'.
I will continue to use it and providing the necessary contexts.

You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics. You have not provided that incontrovertible argument. In response you just invent another word salad. Do you really hope to convince anybody with your proof by word salad?

You are lost.

I presented my thesis:
"It is Impossible for God to Be Real"
meaning,
it is impossible within the condition of being real.
I have explained what is meant by 'real'.
The gold standard of reality is the rated scientific-antirealism-FS, the God-FS has negligible credibility and objectivity [as rated], thus whatever it claims is 'unreal' and false.

Say,
it is impossible for 1+1=3;
the majority of people will agree with that, but to be rigorous and serious,
it is only impossible within the rules of the Arithmetic Framework and System [FS].

In the case of the synergy-FS, 1+1=3 is a possibility.

What is possible within any non-empirical-FS ultimately is impossible within the empirically driven-science-FS.

So, the principle is;
'what is impossible within any specific FS' means the thesis has variables which are beyond the scope of the specified FS.

"Incontrovertibility" in mathematics is only valid and meaningful within the Mathematics FS. Outside mathematics, it has no authority of "Incontrovertibility" at all beyond the Mathematics FS.

Yet another word salad won't make any difference. I simply do not believe in proof by word salad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics. You have not provided that incontrovertible argument. In response you just invent another word salad. Do you really hope to convince anybody with your proof by word salad?

You are lost.

I presented my thesis:
"It is Impossible for God to Be Real"
meaning,
it is impossible within the condition of being real.
I have explained what is meant by 'real'.
The gold standard of reality is the rated scientific-antirealism-FS, the God-FS has negligible credibility and objectivity [as rated], thus whatever it claims is 'unreal' and false.

Say,
it is impossible for 1+1=3;
the majority of people will agree with that, but to be rigorous and serious,
it is only impossible within the rules of the Arithmetic Framework and System [FS].

In the case of the synergy-FS, 1+1=3 is a possibility.

What is possible within any non-empirical-FS ultimately is impossible within the empirically driven-science-FS.

So, the principle is;
'what is impossible within any specific FS' means the thesis has variables which are beyond the scope of the specified FS.

"Incontrovertibility" in mathematics is only valid and meaningful within the Mathematics FS. Outside mathematics, it has no authority of "Incontrovertibility" at all beyond the Mathematics FS.

Yet another word salad won't make any difference. I simply do not believe in proof by word salad.

That holy text is the Worst word salad that drives believers to kill non-believers.

[Age]

You are lost.

I presented my thesis:
"It is Impossible for God to Be Real"
meaning,
it is impossible within the condition of being real.
I have explained what is meant by 'real'.
The gold standard of reality is the rated scientific-antirealism-FS, the God-FS has negligible credibility and objectivity [as rated], thus whatever it claims is 'unreal' and false.

Say,
it is impossible for 1+1=3;
the majority of people will agree with that, but to be rigorous and serious,
it is only impossible within the rules of the Arithmetic Framework and System [FS].

In the case of the synergy-FS, 1+1=3 is a possibility.

What is possible within any non-empirical-FS ultimately is impossible within the empirically driven-science-FS.

So, the principle is;
'what is impossible within any specific FS' means the thesis has variables which are beyond the scope of the specified FS.

"Incontrovertibility" in mathematics is only valid and meaningful within the Mathematics FS. Outside mathematics, it has no authority of "Incontrovertibility" at all beyond the Mathematics FS.

Yet another word salad won't make any difference. I simply do not believe in proof by word salad.

That holy text is the Worst word salad that drives believers to kill non-believers.

But, words, in ANY order, do NOT drive you human beings TO DO, or TO NOT DO, things.

What 'drives' you human beings TO DO, and/or TO NOT DO, things are your MISINTERPRETATION OF words, in whatever order they are in, AND your views, beliefs, and assumptions, which you human beings MAKE "yourselves".

LOL BLAMING something ELSE for what you adult human beings DO, or DO NOT DO, is ANOTHER PRIME example of just how SICK and UNHEALTHIER you adult human beings REALLY ARE.

[godelian]

That holy text is the Worst word salad that drives believers to kill non-believers.

Well, at least it does something. Your word salad does nothing.