Is God impossible?

[Willamena]

I'm unaware of any facts that are not also filtered through individual thoughts about that data. Such that the 'fact' itself is plausibly only based on what I think it is. Elevating it to 'fact' strikes me as inherently biased. Or (as you've heard me say before), things in my night dreams could be equally considered facts. More so at the time of the experience, but I'd argue even on hindsight, with awareness of it being my dream. I would say things that appear in the dream (i.e. a table) are 'factually existing' in much the same way as a table exists in a room where you and I may also be present.

That it is a 'table' is 'about' the world, not the thing in and of itself. Not to mention that sub-atomically (or fundamentally) it is really not different than every other possible thing. But macroscopically, it appears different, I'll grant that. Yet, that then comes backs to thoughts about the thing, or everything.

With the night dream, I think the assumption routinely is, I put the table there, or my imagination did, but I honestly don't see it as different from the waking version, other than I seem to question the nature a bit more in wakeful mind than I do in sleeping mind. In both instances, I rarely am consciously explicitly laying claim to 'things that exist in this world' and just take it for granted.

How this all ties in with God, as reason to believe such possibility, I am (believe it or not) prepared to make the connection. But doing so, would make this post look very long if I didn't leave things right here, for now, to see what agreement there is on this, or what disagreements there may be.

Sounds like a good discussion about (philosophical) realism, perhaps for another thread.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

U look things separately but those who believe in unity look at the whole

You want to see patterns where none need to exist.

Infinite regress will solve the problem

Infinite regress does not solve the problem. Even though infinite regress posits the existence of an un-caused Cause, there's no reason beyond your theological demands to assume there actually is one, nor that the being you claim as God is actually it. The claim of something being un-caused despite being unbelievably complex could apply just as equally to the Universe itself or to any other gods worshipped by humanity as to Allah.

Besides for materialists there is no choice but to make examples of something that is visible and typical to make their minds closer to the main meaning.

As opposed to fantasists who want there to be some ethereal, unprovable gender-specific Creator who exists apart from time & space but is willing to nip in for five minutes to personally interfere in their ephemeral existence

See what I did there? I misrepresented your position and tacked on a derogatory epithet to make my beliefs seem superior. Just like you did in your previous post. This is partly the reason I sometimes wonder why Muslims are even on this board. You don't ever attempt to understand belief systems outside of your own - they're wrong so why bother?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Conceptually, we can think of rational theistic religion as having to pass a number of steps, each with something that needs to be established:

1. Gods are possible.
2. At least one god exists. (Or at least N gods exist, where N is the number of gods in the pantheon I want to believe in)
3. MY god exists. (Or MY gods exist)
4. My god(s) did the things, holds the opinions, etc., that my religion claims.

I would argue that trying to establish any of these steps out of order is putting the cart before the horse.

And as I think this thread helps to illustrate, the conversation is still at step 1.

 

[FearGod]

Given everything we currently know about the nature of reality, I say God is an impossibility.

There will always be unknowns, admittedly. But those unknowns don't leave room for a Cosmic Supernatural being just because we want there to be one.

Prove it.

What's your evidence that God's existence is impossible?

 

[FearGod]

Right - which is why I constantly ask why we even talk about God as a thing at all...

We likewise do not and cannot know if an Invisible Space Wizard exists.
Does it really make sense, then, to spend huge portions of our lives talking about the logical possibility of its existence?

It's something I simply do not understand.

I think only animals don't think about God's existence, but humans always do.

 

[FearGod]

I would say this. I'm a theist, but I would say the existence of G-d is maybe impossible.

I come more from a history background. In history, anything is possible. But not everything is probable. When something has more evidence, the probability of that event increases. With G-d, we obviously have no evidence, so the probability that G-d exists is extremely low. The most probable answer is that G-d doesn't exist. I don't like absolutes though, and without evidence, I think saying impossible would be a step to far.

However, various versions of G-d can be said to be virtually impossible. The classical concept of G-d, a G-d who is all loving, and all powerful, can't exist once the problem of evil is introduced.

Not having evidence doesn't lead to impossibility but it means not yet knowing.

 

[fallingblood]

Not having evidence doesn't lead to impossibility but it means not yet knowing.

I didn't say it did. I said it leads to improbability. It's still possible, just not probable. And that's where faith comes into play.

 

[FearGod]

I didn't say it did. I said it leads to improbability. It's still possible, just not probable. And that's where faith comes into play.

When there's a plan then there's a planner, I don't believe in the blind faith.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Prove it.

What's your evidence that God's existence is impossible?

Ha!
I'm not the one claiming that an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being exists outside the boundaries of space and time, completely immune to the natural laws of our existence. The entire debate about the existence or plausibility of God is pointless without there first being something lending credence to the idea that such a being might even possibly exist...

Aside from personal conviction and hardy claims, there's never been anything present by any theists, ever, in the history of Theology, to support that idea that the deity-of-the-day is even worth talking about. Your faith in a religious history is not evidence. Your deep personal conviction and the veracity with which you can convey your personal testimony is not evidence. Your sincere assertion and handful of logical arguments that say God MUST exist is not evidence - and those three things are all that the theists have.

I'm sorry that those are true statements and that they damage your position. It doesn't make them any less true.

Present something that makes the God argument at least equally as plausible as that of Sasquatch, or Ancient Aliens, or a Flat Earth, and then you'll have the ability to demand proof for the impossibility of your invisible deity.

I think only animals don't think about God's existence, but humans always do.

There are very simple psychological and social reasons for this being so, namely our desire to return to an infant-like state as adults in hopes of parlaying the trials of adulthood...

 

[fallingblood]

When there's a plan then there's a planner, I don't believe in the blind faith.

Belief in G-d takes blind faith. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of G-d. And the argument, where there is a plan, there is a planner, just opens up a whole can of worms, as that planner must also have a planner. Or you allow special pleading.

 

[FearGod]

Ha!
I'm not the one claiming that an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being exists outside the boundaries of space and time, completely immune to the natural laws of our existence. The entire debate about the existence or plausibility of God is pointless without there first being something lending credence to the idea that such a being might even possibly exist...

Aside from personal conviction and hardy claims, there's never been anything present by any theists, ever, in the history of Theology, to support that idea that the deity-of-the-day is even worth talking about. Your faith in a religious history is not evidence. Your deep personal conviction and the veracity with which you can convey your personal testimony is not evidence. Your sincere assertion and handful of logical arguments that say God MUST exist is not evidence - and those three things are all that the theists have.

I'm sorry that those are true statements and that they damage your position. It doesn't make them any less true.

Present something that makes the God argument at least equally as plausible as that of Sasquatch, or Ancient Aliens, or a Flat Earth, and then you'll have the ability to demand proof for the impossibility of your invisible deity.

The universe is an evidence, it's either to believe that it existed as a result of
nothingness or there was was an always existing thing, something should always
be existing and this universe should be existing because something was existing,
I believe this thing was God and you believe it was the nil, not even the vacuum.

There are very simple psychological and social reasons for this being so, namely our desire to return to an infant-like state as adults in hopes of parlaying the trials of adulthood...

Rephrase please.

 

[FearGod]

Belief in G-d takes blind faith. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of G-d. And the argument, where there is a plan, there is a planner, just opens up a whole can of worms, as that planner must also have a planner. Or you allow special pleading.

Don't you think there's a first?

 

[fallingblood]

Don't you think there's a first?

You're argument doesn't allow for a first. If a plan has a planner, then there can't be a first as each plan must have a planner. Thus, there arises a problem.

Do I personally believe there was a first? Yes. However, that is blind faith, as there is absolutely no evidence for that. It is a belief that is improbable, as the existence of G-d is improbable.

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

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?

Different people have different ideas of what "God" means, so if you ask such a question it's important to define exactly what you mean by that word in order to prevent misunderstandings.

 

[FearGod]

You're argument doesn't allow for a first. If a plan has a planner, then there can't be a first as each plan must have a planner. Thus, there arises a problem.

And that's what God is, he has no first, always existing.
Understanding it is the problem, but that thing should always be existing.

Do I personally believe there was a first? Yes. However, that is blind faith, as there is absolutely no evidence for that. It is a belief that is improbable, as the existence of G-d is improbable.

No evidence and unbelievable, but that everlasting existing thing should be existing
and no escape from admitting it .

 

[fallingblood]

And that's what God is, he has no first, always existing.
Understanding it is the problem, but that thing should always be existing.

And then your argument, that every plan has a planner, is false. That's my point. You can't have both. Thus, you can't use that argument as evidence for anything. Not every plan needs a planner, as you yourself support by saying that G-d has no first, is always existing. Thus, G-d, the plan, did not have a planner.

No evidence and unbelievable, but that everlasting existing thing should be existing
and no escape from admitting it .

That really is a circular argument. There is no evidence for G-d. G-d is believed based on faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Different people have different ideas of what "God" means, so if you ask such a question it's important to define exactly what you mean by that word in order to prevent misunderstandings.

That's important later, but even without "God" defined, you can still respond to "is God impossible?" with "maybe."

 

[FearGod]

And then your argument, that every plan has a planner, is false. That's my point. You can't have both. Thus, you can't use that argument as evidence for anything. Not every plan needs a planner, as you yourself support by saying that G-d has no first, is always existing. Thus, G-d, the plan, did not have a planner.

Except that the planner is always existing, if you believe that the universe started
from nothingness then that's another thing which I don't agree with.

That really is a circular argument. There is no evidence for G-d. G-d is believed based on faith.

Do you believe that the universe started from nothingness or that there
should be something that started it?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You're argument doesn't allow for a first. If a plan has a planner, then there can't be a first as each plan must have a planner. Thus, there arises a problem.

Do I personally believe there was a first? Yes. However, that is blind faith, as there is absolutely no evidence for that. It is a belief that is improbable, as the existence of G-d is improbable.

The only escape creationists have is the infinite regress which posits an un-caused First Cause. Even then it's not a very good escape because beyond their theological confirmation bias, there's no reason to believe that what they claim to be the un-caused First Cause is actually un-caused. Their arguments in favour of this (which amount to nothing more than 'it has to be') can be applied as equally to any number of Causers prior to the one they advocate; or even to the Universe itself.

So, in short, I agree with you.

 

[idav]

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 tend to think the impossible is really possible.