Is God impossible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Technically yes, but it just seems like word play that doesn't say or change anything.

I think the question "is God impossible?" better represents my frame of mind on the issue of deities than "is God possible?" It's also a rhetorically fairer way of going at the question; often, I see theists try to present the second question as a way to paint atheists as either leaning toward the existence of God and just needing a nudge, or as closed-minded and unreasonable.

Edit: it also points to an appropriate position. If we have established that a thing is possible, it's more reasonable to believe in it than if whether it can even exist at all is still an open question.

Doesn't 'maybe impossible' still also imply 'possible'?

No; it implies "maybe possible."

Can't we say anything unproven about nature "maybe impossible"?

I wouldn't say so. For instance, when we're trying to figure out if a species has gone extinct, it's often possible that they survived. Maybe they didn't survive, but they could have.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Like my righteous claim to the throne of Denmark?

No.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. That was a rather silly thing to post.

Yes, it was. That was part of the point; silly things can easily be true, and can easily be taken far too seriously under certain circunstances, as well.

What significant difference do you see?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If your God doesn't exist objectively, then you probably aren't going to be able to get to the goal I've set out.


By "impossible", I mean not just "does not exist", but "cannot exist."

God doesnt exist as deity. I dont believe a god/deity exist. So its impossible.

 

[1137]

I wouldn't use Greek philosophers. They were logical, but that applied that logic towards a reality they didn't understand.

Consider medicine. They had a very logical way of diagnosing and treating the sick. . . But as logical as it was, it's destructive.

Humorism - Wikipedia

Applying only pure reason to anything without some kind of enpricical understanding is mastubatory nonsense.

So yeah, classical theism falls into this category.

The theory of forms and classical theism are completely different things.

 

[1137]

This argument means that god is an assumption based on a theory of knowledge.
It does not mean that god factually exists - only that it's required in your particular logical paradigm.

If the theory wasn't sound you could have a point

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The theory of forms and classical theism are completely different things.

Indeed. The theory of forms is clearly nonsense, while classical theism merely may be nonsense.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would say that any god-definition that is logically inconsistent is impossible. For example, a god that is all-compassionate and all-powerful is impossible measured against the reality of our existence in our universe. Likewise, a god who has perfect knowledge of the future and who creates a universe where free will exists, is impossible, as free will requires the possibility of choice, not just the illusion of it.

Beyond that, I wouldn't say that most human-invented god concepts are "impossible" per say, but just unlikely on the order of finding a replica of the statue of liberty buried beneath the surface of mars. It's not impossible, and not provable that it isn't there until and unless we explore the entire sub-surface of the planet mars, but it's about as non-probable as you can get.

 

[1137]

Indeed. The theory of forms is clearly nonsense, while classical theism merely may be nonsense.

So you can't recognize any similar characteristics between your zero button and O button? That they're both circular, both lack corners or flat sides? I should add classical theism would be sound if they could explain why the foundation is a god and not mindless forces.

 

[Willamena]

FYI: I was inspired by something I noticed about this thread: Is there any possibility of God's existence. as well as similar past examples.

I think some people like to play a rhetorical trick where they equivocate between two different senses of "possible":

- "it's possible": I haven't ruled out the conclusion that this thing happened.
- "it's possible": I have ruled out the conclusion that this thing is impossible.

This thread is my attempt to get to the same issue without the trickery.

Does anyone actually use that second one? We cannot conceive of the logically impossible, so it'd be hard to use that as a measure.

- "it's possible": It is, or may be, without contradiction.

The use of biological) instruments to measure the creator of the world--that allegedly is held to be apart from that world, hence is also the creator of the (biological) instruments used to measure that world--is not without contradiction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you can't recognize any similar characteristics between your zero button and O button? That they're both circular, both lack corners or flat sides?

I can recognize them without there being such a thing as an "archetypal keyboard."

 

[1137]

I can recognize them without there being such a thing as an "archetypal keyboard."

It's not about the keyboard, it's about the identity of a thing and its properties.

 

[McBell]

I say maybe.

... if for no other reason than when we ask a question and have no information to help us come up with an answer, the default answer is always "maybe": it could be yes or no, but we don't have enough information yet to tell which.

So could God be impossible? The answer is yes... until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible.

Does anyone have such a reason?

I would say no.
However, I would liken it to the likelihood of successfully nailing water to the wall.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The theory of forms and classical theism are completely different things.

Yes, but their tactics of using pure rationalism to try to discern truth are the same.

 

[interminable]

IS GOD POSSIBLE?

Yes those who say it's impossible should bring some compelling reasons and evidences

 

[Fool]

I can recognize them without there being such a thing as an "archetypal keyboard."

but you can't recognize those things which aren't within your visible spectrum. like gravity is recognized by it's action based on other visible objects but gravity itself doesn't have a form, like mind doesn't have an exact form, or love.

The Neuroscience of Illusion

 

[Fool]

Indeed. The theory of forms is clearly nonsense, while classical theism merely may be nonsense.

nope, the theory of forms is idealism. without an idea the scientific method is useless. realism is the result of a potential. idealism is the movement upward and realism is the movement downward as displayed in the sri yantra; so the potential of one is the actual of the other. you can't have one without the other, yin and yang, dao. the dao that can be defined is not the dao..

why?

if there is no polarity, there is no discernment of form. the forms are impermanent, the idea is bullet proof mr. creedy.


belief is very, very powerful. i work well from either end but the middle Way is the Best. neither to the left, or right, but straight and narrow is the WAY. neither ascetism nor hedonism.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Yes, it was. That was part of the point; silly things can easily be true, and can easily be taken far too seriously under certain circunstances, as well.

What significant difference do you see?

Your post was idiotic while mine was not. Isn't it obvious that your prejudice clouds your thinking? It most certainly is to me.

By the way, I would be very interested to hear your righteous claim to the throne of Denmark. Fire away, maestro. Let's hear it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your post was idiotic while mine was not. Isn't it obvious that your prejudice clouds your thinking? It most certainly is to me.

Better luck next time.

 

[Willamena]

Let's go back to what you were saying on p.1 where you said: "If your God doesn't exist objectively" - can you think of anything that truly exists objectively? Let's have that discussion first, such that the reason will be more clear.

Objective and subjective describe perspectives on absolutely everything. Nothing is exempt from perspective.