New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Harbal]

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],

Just to clarify: By "theist", do you mean someone who believes in the existence of a god, or gods, of some or any kind, or do you only mean someone who believes in a god that cannot possibly exist?

[Dontaskme]

If something can be imagined, then that something must exist as imagined.

What that something imagined is, is also inseparable from the imaginer.

That's all that can be known. There is nothing more to this knowing, except as more imagined things known.

In the world of imagination, when the imagined something dies, then was the something that died, ever real? or was the something only appearing as if it was real?
In death, where has the realness of the something imagined gone?
Same with birth, where was this something born, before it was born? how does something just suddenly pop alive that didn't exist before? Is this the defintion of something real? that it once did not exist, and then just suddenly existed, then disappeared again?


Trying to know for real, these imagined somethings, is an appearance of this unknowing life, except as imagined in this imagined conception, it's all very absurd and irrational to try and peg a sense of realness on to it.

Life is a dream, dreamt by no one, full stop. Nothing ever happened in a dream, it only appeared to happen.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If something can be imagined, then that something must exist as imagined.

What that something imagined is, is also inseparable from the imaginer.

You need to understand what 'imagine' means.
Imagine refer to something that can be imaged sensibly in the mind.
What can be imaged must be empirical and provable.

God [necessary perfect] cannot be imaged, thus cannot be imagined.
God is merely a thought that is merely speculated, thus it is an intelligible object not a possible sensible [empirical] thing.
The idea of God is like a square-circle that can be thought but cannot be imaged, i.e. not possible to be real.

I can imagine a 1 million times intelligent human-like being in a planet a million light years away doing a Matrix on us. This can be imagined because all the variables here are empirically possible, it is only a matter of bringing in the empirical evidences to verify it.

The idea of God [necessarily perfect], as a thought is non-empirical and as such no empirical possibility to be verified and justified, thus illusory.

[Dontaskme]

If something can be imagined, then that something must exist as imagined.

What that something imagined is, is also inseparable from the imaginer.

You need to understand what 'imagine' means.
Imagine refer to something that can be imaged sensibly in the mind.
What can be imaged must be empirical and provable.

An object is known and verifiable by observation, and the observation of an object is an experience, but there is never any direct experience of experiencing the actual reality of the object observed, the only experience is the observing experience, never the thing, or idea observed.
So what has apparently been mentally constructed as existing as a thing, is only provable to the mind that constructed it.
In reality, no constructed thing, has ever seen the mind that constructed it. Just try creating an image of the mind..it's a totally abstract idea, it cannot be captured and be made into an image, no more than the invisible white light that appears as all colours can be imaged, an image is always the illusory overlay upon the unseen, making everything seen, an illusory appearance.

God [necessary perfect] cannot be imaged, thus cannot be imagined.
God is merely a thought that is merely speculated, thus it is an intelligible object not a possible sensible [empirical] thing.
The idea of God is like a square-circle that can be thought but cannot be imaged, i.e. not possible to be real.

I agree that God is an object known. And that objects know nothing of their existence.

[Iwannaplato]

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],

Just to clarify: By "theist", do you mean someone who believes in the existence of a god, or gods, of some or any kind, or do you only mean someone who believes in a god that cannot possibly exist?

That was a concise way of convey what my babbling intended to convey.

[Harbal]

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],

Just to clarify: By "theist", do you mean someone who believes in the existence of a god, or gods, of some or any kind, or do you only mean someone who believes in a god that cannot possibly exist?

That was a concise way of convey what my babbling intended to convey.

When it comes to VA's theories and ideas, it is often glaringly obvious that they are just wrong in so many ways, but they tend to be wrong in ways that make hard to know how to put your explanation of how they are wrong into words.

[Flannel Jesus]

When it comes to VA's theories and ideas, it is often glaringly obvious that they are just wrong in so many ways, but they tend to be wrong in ways that make hard to know how to put your explanation of how they are wrong into words.

I have at times thought, this guy is literally inventing new fallacies...

[Harbal]

When it comes to VA's theories and ideas, it is often glaringly obvious that they are just wrong in so many ways, but they tend to be wrong in ways that make hard to know how to put your explanation of how they are wrong into words.

I have at times thought, this guy is literally inventing new fallacies...

[Dontaskme]

When it comes to VA's theories and ideas, it is often glaringly obvious that they are just wrong in so many ways, but they tend to be wrong in ways that make hard to know how to put your explanation of how they are wrong into words.

I have at times thought, this guy is literally inventing new fallacies...

It is far harder to kill a phantom than a reality. All problems are illusions of the mind. Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.

[Agent Smith]

Read some Holy Books man .. On secomd thought, no, not scripture, read philosophy tomes and by the looks of it, you have! You haven't found perfection, I can tell. That's ok, it may not be in the place you're looking - try somewhere else mon ami!

[seeds]

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to point out to you the following before it finally sinks in...

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.

Again, your thread premise is nothing more than a strawman that you have built out of the hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism.
_______

Note your strawman.
I stated
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.
The critical word here is 'real' as defined in the OP above.

The onus in on you to prove your god is real, which I argued is impossible.

What, exactly, is my strawman???

You don't seem to understand what the word "strawman" (or strawman fallacy) actually means.

According to Wiki:

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Well, the actual argument (or question) under discussion is whether or not God is empirically "real."

In which case, it is obvious to everyone (except you, of course) that you are attacking a strawman that, as I stated earlier, you have erected out of the "...hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism..."

What I am getting at is that you can beat the stuffings out of your strawman until the cows come home and it will have no bearing or relevance with respect to the actual question under discussion.

Furthermore, as with the word "strawman," you also don't seem to understand what the word "real" means.

Like all dutiful materialists, you associate the word "real" with that which can be verified via the senses and especially via scientific modalities. However, even the physicists are admitting that they don't know what 95% of the universe is made of.

And in parallel with that "dark energy/dark matter" issue is one of my favorite quotes from physicist and author, Nick Herbert...

The entire visible universe, what Bishop Berkeley called "the mighty frame of the world," rests ultimately on a strange quantum kind of being no more substantial than a promise.

The point is, my dear V, is that if the entire universe is founded upon a substance that is "...no more substantial than a promise..." then what the heck are you referring to when you use the word "real"?

Now if you just add to that the fact that physicists are also proclaiming that what you are calling "real" is comprised of approximately 99.99% empty space, then the word "real" becomes even more tenuous.

And the ultimate point is that if puny little humans can't even figure out what 95% of the universe is made of, then it's no surprise that they cannot figure out what the substance of life, mind, consciousness, and God, is made of.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to point out to you the following before it finally sinks in...
Again, your thread premise is nothing more than a strawman that you have built out of the hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism.
_______

Note your strawman.
I stated
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.
The critical word here is 'real' as defined in the OP above.

The onus in on you to prove your god is real, which I argued is impossible.

What, exactly, is my strawman???

You don't seem to understand what the word "strawman" (or strawman fallacy) actually means.

According to Wiki:

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Well, the actual argument (or question) under discussion is whether or not God is empirically "real."

In which case, it is obvious to everyone (except you, of course) that you are attacking a strawman that, as I stated earlier, you have erected out of the "...hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism..."

What I am getting at is that you can beat the stuffings out of your strawman until the cows come home and it will have no bearing or relevance with respect to the actual question under discussion.

Furthermore, as with the word "strawman," you also don't seem to understand what the word "real" means.

As I had explained above,
my argument was toward the conclusion,
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.
But instead you are insisting on your own argument and mine is false.

Like all dutiful materialists, you associate the word "real" with that which can be verified via the senses and especially via scientific modalities. However, even the physicists are admitting that they don't know what 95% of the universe is made of.

And in parallel with that "dark energy/dark matter" issue is one of my favorite quotes from physicist and author, Nick Herbert...

The entire visible universe, what Bishop Berkeley called "the mighty frame of the world," rests ultimately on a strange quantum kind of being no more substantial than a promise.

The point is, my dear V, is that if the entire universe is founded upon a substance that is "...no more substantial than a promise..." then what the heck are you referring to when you use the word "real"?

Now if you just add to that the fact that physicists are also proclaiming that what you are calling "real" is comprised of approximately 99.99% empty space, then the word "real" becomes even more tenuous.

And the ultimate point is that if puny little humans can't even figure out what 95% of the universe is made of, then it's no surprise that they cannot figure out what the substance of life, mind, consciousness, and God, is made of.
_______

What wrong with a real 99.99 empty space that can be verified and justified?
Btw, how do you know what is 100% of space to assess that 99.99%.

However, even the physicists are admitting that they don't know what 95% of the universe is made of.

Which physicists and are there many?

Even if that the case, that is not Science.
Science is focused on what is real as far as scientific verifiable evidence can support their conclusions as conditioned upon the scientific-FSK.

Note,
Space & Time are Not Mind-Independent
viewtopic.php?t=40215
i.e. space and time are not real in "your" specific sense.

Note my principle of what is real;
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and what I commonly refer to, Knowledge [FSK]. The scientific FSK [despite is weaknesses] is the most reliable and credible at present. If not, which FSK is more trustworthy and the scientific FSK to justify what is real or possibly real?

Since the FSK is human-based, it follows, reality cannot exists independent of the human mind, brain and body. In a crude way, humans are the co-creator of the FSK-ed reality.

Even if you know all of space [which is unreal in your sense] whatever is therein in space must be possible to be verified and justified with evidence to confirm they are real.

You claim to know God exists, but you [& theists] are not able to bring direct evidence of God for verification and justification to confirm it is real.

Why you are insisting God exists as real even without any direct evidence it is real is because you need the thought of God to soothe the terrible primal inherent cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis as a default of evolution.

To test the above thesis, try to genuinely reject God exists as real for a day or even an hour, you will feel a sudden cold turkey and perhaps shivers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When it comes to VA's theories and ideas, it is often glaringly obvious that they are just wrong in so many ways, but they tend to be wrong in ways that make hard to know how to put your explanation of how they are wrong into words.

I have at times thought, this guy is literally inventing new fallacies...

The origin of the disagreement is due to the very contrasting fundamental grounds, i.e.;

1. FSK-ed reality
2. Mind-independent reality - philosophical realism.

Thus when your philosophical stance is grounded on philosophical realism, there is no way you will agree with [may not understand] the FSK-ed ground of reality.
As such, philosophical realism will blame anti-philosophical-realists as engaging in fallacious arguments.

As I had shown, philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion emerging from an evolutionary default driven by an existential crisis.

Note the very obvious chasm between theists and anti-theists. There is no way theists will agree with anti-theists because there are primal emotions at stake. Theists will always accuse the anti-theists as putting forward fallacious arguments and vice-versa.

Since this is a philosophy forum, and in accordance to its purpose which is for all those who disagree with the other to trash out their views in an objective manner.

I believe the effective solution to bridge the philosophical chasm is psychological and not an epistemological. That is how Buddhism [psychological + spiritual] came into the picture to reconcile the differences.

[Iwannaplato]

To test the above thesis, try to genuinely reject God exists as real for a day or even an hour, you will feel a sudden cold turkey and perhaps shivers.

Try going for a day thinking that in general Peter Holmes has been right and you wrong. See if you don't feel anger, fear, anxiety and a sense of panic.

People get very attached to ideas, period, be they true ideas or not. Regardless.

[Flannel Jesus]

When it comes to VA's theories and ideas, it is often glaringly obvious that they are just wrong in so many ways, but they tend to be wrong in ways that make hard to know how to put your explanation of how they are wrong into words.

I have at times thought, this guy is literally inventing new fallacies...

The origin of the disagreement is due to the very contrasting fundamental grounds, i.e.;

1. FSK-ed reality
2. Mind-independent reality - philosophical realism.

No, the thing you quoted has nothing to do with whether I disagree with you about any matter of fact. There are plenty of people who i disagree with just as much as I disagree with you, who I wouldn't say that about. That they're "inventing new fallacies". Hell, there are people who have argued for things I agree with, who have presented arguments so nonsensical that I said something like that about them.

It has nothing to do with any disagreement of that sort