God is an Impossibility.

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.

Because you say so?

I think you should be familiar enough with what Kant says about this considering he wrote the whole of A Critique of Pure Reason in regards to investigating this.

Do you really believe a thought can arise prior to experience?

[Spectrum]

A personal god is a taboo in our modern philosophical age.

What else can God be but personal? Consider those who claimed to have had communication with God. They were not exactly receiving a broadcast announcements. Rather each had their own intense personal experience that they believed to be be God. It's an assumption. Maybe, maybe not.

I understand the default is it has to be a personal experience. But note 'personal god' in the following sense;

However, Albert Einstein consistently and unambiguously denied believing in a personal god who answered prayers or involved himself in human affairs—exactly the sort of god common to religious theists claiming that Einstein was one of them.

These quotes from Einstein's writings show that those who portray him as a theist are incorrect, and in fact he said this was a lie. He likens his form of religiosity to that of Spinoza, a pantheist who did not support the belief in a personal God.
https://www.thoughtco.com/albert-einste ... god-249856

God is defined in various terms but ultimately a generic God is an ontological God.
Kant has argued all forms of God is eventually an ontological god.

Another point is if one were to define one's God to one's personal definition, that would be also be a personal god, to each his/her own, which is very subjective.

-- Updated Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:29 pm to add the following --

I think what you've proved, Spectrum, is that a Perfect God is an impossibility. Good work.
However, an imperfect God or Gods is quite a different story...

God for all intents and purposes is ultimate an ontological God, i.e. a perfect God.

Generally in polytheism there are many gods with different power and capabilities, but in most cases there is one superior god that dominates all other gods. Example, in Hinduism there are thousands of gods, but the most superior is Brahman which deemed as ontological and perfect.
Before Muhammad, there was 365 gods in the Kabba. Muhammad destroyed all these lesser gods and maintain only Allah, the one and only God [ontological].

Many has acknowledged the weaknesses of polytheism which is often condemned and to overcome this weaknesses, the improved version is the monotheistic God. This monotheistic God is subsequently refined [theistic philosophers - e.g. St Anselm] to be an ontological God which is perfect [100%] so that no one can claim a more superior God.

If anyone were to claim to believe in an imperfect god that is inferior to another, I would not bother to reason such a god does not exist. If you believe in a monkey god [hanuman], and other lesser gods [zeus, neptune and the likes] I would not bother to debate whether they exists or not.

An ontological God is a God that is omni-whatever, i.e. 100% perfect and all powerful thus able to do anything, e.g. create all of reality, grant believers eternal life and a place in heaven or paradise, plus sending disbelievers to hell, etc.

Thus an imperfect god or gods is No Story.

-- Updated Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:41 pm to add the following --

Spectrum -

Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.

Because you say so?

I think you should be familiar enough with what Kant says about this considering he wrote the whole of A Critique of Pure Reason in regards to investigating this.

Do you really believe a thought can arise prior to experience?

Re Kant, the 'Ideal' is beyond the scope of the Empirical which comprise of Sensibility and Understanding up to the limit of the noumenon.

According to Kant;

But though all our Knowledge begins with Experience, it does not follow that it ALL arises out of Experience. B1

From the above, thoughts [basis of knowledge & cognition] can arise a priori, i.e. prior to experience. However this is supported by a complex set of a priori elements [intuitions, categories, the self, etc.] and various processes [combinations, perception, cognition, etc.] taking place in the brain and mind that give rise to thoughts and subsequently knowlege.

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

It looks to me like you have a proof of why we cannot know what we cannot know. So you're more or less saying we cannot possibly know God, and in that way I guess we could stretch that meaning to "God is an impossibility because we cannot possible know god." This is back to Kantian noumenon and that whole confusing matter.

I forget Kant's famous quote so to paraphrase : "No thought without objects, and no object without thought" (That sounds like I've missed something out though :S)

[Dark Matter]

Spectrum -

It looks to me like you have a proof of why we cannot know what we cannot know. So you're more or less saying we cannot possibly know God, and in that way I guess we could stretch that meaning to "God is an impossibility because we cannot possible know god." This is back to Kantian noumenon and that whole confusing matter.

I forget Kant's famous quote so to paraphrase : "No thought without objects, and no object without thought" (That sounds like I've missed something out though :S)

Sounds like an open invitation to idolatry.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum -

It looks to me like you have a proof of why we cannot know what we cannot know. So you're more or less saying we cannot possibly know God, and in that way I guess we could stretch that meaning to "God is an impossibility because we cannot possible know god." This is back to Kantian noumenon and that whole confusing matter.

I forget Kant's famous quote so to paraphrase : "No thought without objects, and no object without thought" (That sounds like I've missed something out though :S)

"we cannot know what we cannot know" on a finer analysis imply there is something that can possibly be known but but we cannot or will never know "it."

As for Kant's noumenon or thing-in-itself, it is only in the negative sense, thus there is nothing to be known rather than cannot be known, there is a subtle difference here.

Since there is nothing to be known [as reasoned] God is an impossibility, a non-starter and moot. God, by reason, is an impossibility in reality.

Nonetheless, humans can still think and reason about a God [nothing to stop there from thinking or put anything in thoughts] as a necessity for a desperate [subliminal] psychological purpose. This is what theists are doing at the present.

Is it this quote:

• "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." A51 B75

[Burning ghost]

Dark Matter -

No idea what you're talking about.

Spectrum -

Although I may disagree with some of the above I think I see what you mean now.

Just for those not up on Kantian terminology when he says "intuition" he means 'sense' of space and time. As in you cannot know of something if you cannot place it somewhere and sometime. Even with mathematics we know of mathematical concepts because they are abstractions of experiences about space and time.

I think you can say something is empirically impossible, but if it is not empirically impossible then I guess you could ask me what is such a thing if it is empirically impossible? This kind of gets me into thinking about fractals and chaos so I'll shuffle off and be confused by existence elsewhere

[Atreyu]

To get back to the original idea, only a "Perfect God" is an impossibility.

An "Imperfect God" or Gods, however, is definitely a possibility. And, in fact, I would argue that this is by far the most likely scenario...

[Spectrum]

To get back to the original idea, only a "Perfect God" is an impossibility.

An "Imperfect God" or Gods, however, is definitely a possibility. And, in fact, I would argue that this is by far the most likely scenario...

First, an absolutely perfect ontological God is an impossibility because absolute perfection is an impossibility.

Whether an imperfect god or gods is a possibility will depend on the following;

• 1. Empirical related god
  2. Non-empirical, transcendent god.

1. Empirical related god
The only possible empirical entity with agency has to be an anthropomorphic god because humans exist empirical. An example would be "a god like a man with a beard in the sky" or any entity with human-liked qualities.
The probability of the existence of such a god would be very low based on inference until there are empirical evidence to prove such a god exists.
But such an empirical related god would be vulnerable to be less perfect than another god which is more perfect and this will lead to an infinite regression.

If you want to accept the possibility of an inferior imperfect empirical related god, I not bothered about it. Non-theists are not bothered with imperfect gods like Zeus, Neptune, Apollo, Eros, Hanuman - the monkey god, etc.


2. Non-empirical, transcendent god.
An imperfect non-empirical or transcendent god is by default impossible to be real empirically. There is no possibility at all to prove such a god empirically.
Such a god can only exists in thought and crude reason, and Kant had demonstrated this is a transcendental illusion. I believe this illusion is conjured or "squeezed" out of psychological desperation.

I had argued, a God per-se ultimately and imperatively must be an absolutely perfect ontological God than which no greater can be conceived.
Such a god is of great concern to humanity when it imposes on the basic rights of humans, promote pseudo arrogance of its believers, influences believers to kill non-believers merely because they disbelieve.

-- Updated Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:21 pm to add the following --

Generally,

The idea [not a concept] of a God is borne out of an inherent psychological desperation pulsating at the subliminal levels of the mind and this is reinforced by faith. Analogically this is like the control of "zombie parasites" over the minds of their hosts.

This belief in a God comes in degrees depending on the psychological theistic state of the person from being a dogmatic fundamentalist to an agnostic.

The point is once a belief in God provides a soothing relief to the related psychological angst it is difficult for theists to let go of theism and they will defend such a belief to the extreme most of even killing disbelievers when they feel their security of theism is threatened.

Because the psychological stakes are very high, theists will come with all sorts of defense arguments to justify God exists, but these arguments are all without substance and real groundings.

Because the idea of God is borne out of psychological desperation and conjured without evidence [except by faith], no one has ever been able to prove with evidence god exists as real.

The belief in a god out of psychological desperation has 'evolved' over the ages from an empirical related God [the bearded man in the sky] to the highest and greatest absolutely perfect God [ontological] one can think of.

However the greatest absolutely perfect God [ontological] is baseless and as the OP proved such a God relying on absolute perfection is an impossibility.

The only validity and utility for the idea of God is solely a psychological one and must be resolved on such a psychological basis.

Since thousands of years ago, many [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and the likes] has resorted to its true nature, i.e. the psychological factor to deal with that associated inherent existential crisis.

[Dark Matter]

I agree with you, Spectrum. The god you disavow surely does not exist.

[Londoner]

There is no way absolute perfection can exists in empirical reality.
Since God must be absolutely perfect [exists in theory only] it is an impossibility in reality.

That's right, God does not exist in 'reality' - where 'reality' is understood to be what we can experience empirically.

But that would only make him 'impossible' if we also know that nothing exists except what we can experience empirically.

So how can we know that nothing exists except what we can experience empirically? Not empirically! No empirical experience can prove that things do not exist outside empirical experience.

So the claim that 'nothing exists except what we can experience empirically' is not itself empirical.

In that case, the claim 'nothing exists except what we can experience empirically' is self-contradictory.

[Steve3007]

Londoner:

But that would only make him 'impossible' if we also know that nothing exists except what we can experience empirically.

Or if we somehow include empirical experience in the definition of the word "impossible". I suspect that for many people that is what happens.

So how can we know that nothing exists except what we can experience empirically? Not empirically! No empirical experience can prove that things do not exist outside empirical experience.

I think one problem with these kinds of discussions is that people often don't stick strictly to considering things that can't in any way be experienced empirically. On closer inspection, it turns out that the proposed "thing" can in fact be experienced empirically by way of its proposed indirect effects.

If God really was a thing that could not in any way be experienced empirically, then presumably he wouldn't be capable of doing things like creating an empirically observable universe? I suppose it's a bit like other things that are sometimes classed as metaphysical, such as the the laws of physics. The law of gravity is, arguably, a metaphysical concept, a bit like God. It's not an object. It doesn't exist in the material world. But do we experience it empirically by its effects on that world? Likewise, surely anybody who claims to have had any experience, including any emotional state, which they attribute to God are, in some sense, claiming empirical evidence for God, aren't they?

-- Updated Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:45 pm to add the following --

I guess what I've said here could probably be characterised as similar in form to Descartes' (and others') mind-body problem.

[Spectrum]

There is no way absolute perfection can exists in empirical reality.
Since God must be absolutely perfect [exists in theory only] it is an impossibility in reality.

That's right, God does not exist in 'reality' - where 'reality' is understood to be what we can experience empirically.

But that would only make him 'impossible' if we also know that nothing exists except what we can experience empirically.

So how can we know that nothing exists except what we can experience empirically? Not empirically! No empirical experience can prove that things do not exist outside empirical experience.

So the claim that 'nothing exists except what we can experience empirically' is not itself empirical.

In that case, the claim 'nothing exists except what we can experience empirically' is self-contradictory.

"the claim that 'nothing exists except what we can experience empirically' "
The above with 'nothing exists' is not within my thesis.

Note I mentioned ".. God must be absolutely perfect [exists in theory only]" in the above. So yours is a straw man.
The idea of God can also exists in one's thoughts.

In any case, my thesis in the OP is not an empirical proof [like a Scientific proof based on evidence and Scientific Method] but a argument from logical deduction with reference to non-empirical elements in contrast to empirical elements.

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Now that I have proven logically and rationally that God is an impossibility, the onus is on the theist to prove his/her claim God exists empirically as real.

If not empirical with logic and in thought only, how else would you be able to prove any thing exists or is possible to exists at all?

The critical element here is absolute perfection.
An absolutely perfect God is only possible in thoughts which serve one's psychological needs.

My OP is focus on 'possibility' and 'impossibility' in reality.
Note I mentioned an anthropomorphic God is possible by crude reason because it is attributed empirical elements albeit of very low empirical possibility, but would any one still believe in an anthropomorphic in the current intellectual and spiritual state? Would any one be able to prove such a God exists empirically in reality?
The ultimate sense of a God is always an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.

An absolute perfect God, i.e. an ontological God, on the other hand has no empirical possibility at all.
As I had requested above, show me a convincing method where one can prove the existence of any thing in reality other than relying on empirical based proofs, e.g. Scientific proofs.

-- Updated Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:11 am to add the following --

I think one problem with these kinds of discussions is that people often don't stick strictly to considering things that can't in any way be experienced empirically. On closer inspection, it turns out that the proposed "thing" can in fact be experienced empirically by way of its proposed indirect effects.

If God really was a thing that could not in any way be experienced empirically,
then presumably he wouldn't be capable of doing things like creating an empirically observable universe?

You are taking a big leap here in linking a non-empirical with the empirical. You are assuming a non-empirical God can create the empirical. Theists will claim a non-empirical God created the empirical but this is an impossibility.
If God cannot be experienced empirically, there is no way he could have created any thing empirically.

I suppose it's a bit like other things that are sometimes classed as metaphysical, such as the the laws of physics. The law of gravity is, arguably, a metaphysical concept, a bit like God. It's not an object. It doesn't exist in the material world. But do we experience it empirically by its effects on that world? Likewise, surely anybody who claims to have had any experience, including any emotional state, which they attribute to God are, in some sense, claiming empirical evidence for God, aren't they?

The Law of Physics are not 'metaphysical' in the Metaphysics - ontological sense.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

The common basis in Physics at present is not 'material' [materialism bashed by Berkeley] but 'Physical' [to cover non-material elements within Quantum Mechanics].
All physical properties of reality [gravity, energy, quarks] can be proven scientifically [testable, repeatable, justifiable, falsifiable, etc.] but God cannot be scientifically tested and proven.

Theists will claim the whole universe and reality is created by a God but such a claim failed miserably [the cosmological argument is false].

[Londoner]

In any case, my thesis in the OP is not an empirical proof [like a Scientific proof based on evidence and Scientific Method] but a argument from logical deduction with reference to non-empirical elements in contrast to empirical elements.

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

It is not a deduction, because you have assumed your conclusion in your premise.

I could equally write:

• Absolute perfection is a possibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is a possibility.

Now that I have proven logically and rationally that God is an impossibility, the onus is on the theist to prove his/her claim God exists empirically as real.

First, logic cannot prove the existence or non-existence of anything.

Second, the theist does not claim that God is 'empirically as real'; they say God exists outside the empirical world.

If not empirical with logic and in thought only, how else would you be able to prove any thing exists or is possible to exists at all?

I do not understand 'empirical with logic'. You can have either one or the other.

If you write that God exists 'in thought only', then you also accept that things can 'exist' in other ways than empirically. We cannot know all the ways they might exist.

You can prove that something exists, in that it meets whatever criteria that corresponds to what we might mean by 'exist', but you can never prove non-existence.

An absolutely perfect God is only possible in thoughts which serve one's psychological needs.

How do you know? You could only know that if you have managed to get outside your own head, gone to the non-empirical realm in which God exists, and had a look around!

[Spectrum]

In any case, my thesis in the OP is not an empirical proof [like a Scientific proof based on evidence and Scientific Method] but a argument from logical deduction with reference to non-empirical elements in contrast to empirical elements.

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

It is not a deduction, because you have assumed your conclusion in your premise.

I could equally write:

• Absolute perfection is a possibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is a possibility.

Note I contrasted absolute perfection and relative perfection, and explained why absolute perfection is an impossibility.
Where is your explanation for your major premise, 'Absolute perfection is a possibility.'

Btw, in a deduction, the elements of the conclusion obviously must flow from the major premise [demonstrated] and subsumed by the minor premise, which is in my syllogism.

Now that I have proven logically and rationally that God is an impossibility, the onus is on the theist to prove his/her claim God exists empirically as real.

First, logic cannot prove the existence or non-existence of anything.

Why not, logic and prove existence or non-existence of anything, logically, but not necessary empirically.

Second, the theist does not claim that God is 'empirically as real'; they say God exists outside the empirical world.

Most theists will claim they can experience God as something real, hear and answer their prayers.
Those theists who do not assigned empirical reality to God, believe God exists in their thoughts only.

If not empirical with logic and in thought only, how else would you be able to prove any thing exists or is possible to exists at all?

I do not understand 'empirical with logic'. You can have either one or the other.

Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and supported by logic [induction]. That is empirical with logic.

If you write that God exists 'in thought only', then you also accept that things can 'exist' in other ways than empirically. We cannot know all the ways they might exist.

Yes, God can exists in various perspective, i.e. empirical and thought-only & reason [rationalism].

We cannot know all the ways they might exist.

What other ways, other than empirical and in-thoughts?

You can prove that something exists, in that it meets whatever criteria that corresponds to what we might mean by 'exist', but you can never prove non-existence.

Don't insult your philosophical intelligence but resorting to "cannot prove non-existence." This is philosophical cowardice.

An absolutely perfect God is only possible in thoughts which serve one's psychological needs.

How do you know? You could only know that if you have managed to get outside your own head, gone to the non-empirical realm in which God exists, and had a look around!

As explained in the OP, it is impossible for an absolutely perfect God to exist empirically. The only other alternative is by thoughts or reason [pure (Kantian) crude reason].

I have argued elsewhere, the basis of a belief in God is psychological as driven by a "zombie parasite." As I had stated this is supported, example by Buddhist philosophies which is non-theistic [abandon the idea of an illusory God] in psychologically dealing with the mother of all sufferings [dukkha].

[Londoner]

Note I contrasted absolute perfection and relative perfection, and explained why absolute perfection is an impossibility.

You pointed out the way we use the word 'perfection' about the empirical world was only comparative, but we are not discussing an object in the empirical world.

I'm doubtful it is true inside the empirical world either; I think the claim is based on a misunderstanding of language, of how we use words like 'prefect'. If somebody describes an apple as 'perfect' we understand it in context; we do not imagine they are talking metaphysics.

Where is your explanation for your major premise, 'Absolute perfection is a possibility.'

It is an assumption, just like your premise that absolute perfection outside the empirical world was 'impossible'

Btw, in a deduction, the elements of the conclusion obviously must flow from the major premise [demonstrated] and subsumed by the minor premise, which is in my syllogism.

No, a deduction is simply a matter of following the rules of logic.

Deduction cannot 'demonstrate' the truth or otherwise of a premise. In logic, 'truth' is simply a value which we are free to assume. To argue a premise is also true in an empirical sense requires empirical evidence. We can have no empirical evidence of God because God is outside the empirical world.

Me: First, logic cannot prove the existence or non-existence of anything.
Why not, logic and prove existence or non-existence of anything, logically, but not necessary empirically.

Logic does not assert the existence of anything. It only deals with the relationship between propositions. Like '1 + 1 = 2' does not prove 'there are two apples'. '1 + 1 = 2' is not true because it coincides with an empirical fact.

Me: Second, the theist does not claim that God is 'empirically as real'; they say God exists outside the empirical world.
Most theists will claim they can experience God as something real, hear and answer their prayers.
Those theists who do not assigned empirical reality to God, believe God exists in their thoughts only.

They do not think God 'hears' in the sense of having a 'real' pair of ears that respond the sound waves. But you are quite right, they say God exists in their thoughts. They think that we have something called a 'mind', which is not empirical, and I agree with them. So we are all aware that some things exist outside 'empirical reality'. Or you can extend your understanding of 'empirical experience' to include thoughts, in which case we experience God empirically. Please yourself.

Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and supported by logic [induction]. That is empirical with logic.

Induction is not part of deductive logic. It cannot show that anything must be the case, for example no amount of white swans can prove there cannot be a black swan. Nor can we discover the colour of swans through logic, we can only do that via our senses.

A scientific theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved.

Me: You can prove that something exists, in that it meets whatever criteria that corresponds to what we might mean by 'exist', but you can never prove non-existence.
Don't insult your philosophical intelligence but resorting to "cannot prove non-existence." This is philosophical cowardice.

When people substitute insults for replies it is a sign they know they have lost the argument.