why a god is impossible

[Ichneumonwasp]

That is not true. Plato's concept of the soul was not unitary but ternary.

I thought that was his concept of mind in The Republic, not soul. It's been a while since I read the The Republic, though. I stand corrected.

Your problem obviously is that you assume metaphysical concepts need to 'make sense'.

True, but it's usually a good place to start.

As soon as you start discussing 'mechanisms' for how it does what it does, you stop discussing metaphysics and you start considering physics.

Depends on what we mean. A pure materialist position is a metaphysical position that consists completely of physics, so the distinction cannot hold completely.

You are taking the analogy too far. Obviously there are differences between brains and televisions, just like there are differences between brains and computers or whatever you like to compare them to. But none of those differences can prove that there isn't some mysterious outside force acting on them, as a differently constructed receiver may also "do things" and "remember things".

Again, I'm not offering proof, only the likelier possibility based on the available evidence. Of course this assumes a metaphysical position to some degree and an epistemic position that I can and should trust what I experience as reality, but still.....

I don't think that is true. If there were pixies acting out television shows, they would not be metaphysical but rather physical beings inside your television and we estimate how probable it is that they exist.

But these pixies are not a material reality. They look just like the pictures in your TV screen and "live" in the 8th dimension. They just appear to us here like TV images.

We know that the mind stops having a method of communicating to the physical world that it exists. If it has a metaphysical component that does not necessarily mean it stops completely.

But there is no memory and no experience. We know what occurs with sleep and dreams -- we are not able to communicate with the outside world, but there is still experience and we experience the passage of time. When the brain is turned off there is no experience of the passage of time.

That is not at all how the brain works.

I am not arguing that the brain is a digital computer, but that otherwise inert material stuff can do the sort of thing that was thought impossible for otherwise inert material stuff to do -- but only by functioning, not by being present. Not by receiving. By acting.

Or maybe they do, and just can't communicate outward that they do. Taking the batteries out of a radio does not mean the radio signal disappears, it just means it cannot sound it out.

But the soul would not stop being in that situation. It should still hang around somewhere and experience the passage of time. If it didn't, then what is it? If it has no dimension, no materiality, and no experience how can it be said to exist in any way. If we stop the brain, does a person die?

Only if those philosophical stances have different empirical consequences. If two philosophical positions make the same predictions about what sort of evidence can be found, you cannot assign different probabilities to them.

What I am saying is that they have different empirical consequences. I don't see how an immaterial soul received by the brain could act the same as a mind created by brain chemistry. The other issues I've raised are those other consequences. How could stimulating nervous tissue produce anything coherent if it were merely a receiver?

Exactly my point. It is a preference.

Then we agree. But one preference has evidence to back it up and one does not. Again, I am not trying to prove the absolute impossibility of an immaterial soul, only its relative unlikelihood.

My point is that the only difference between a materialist and a dualist view of the workings of the brain is your personal beliefs and philosophical preferences. If you see problems with one view, it is only because you can't make that view fit into your own.

I don't know, I think I would probably state that more forcefully. It isn't just a difference in personal beliefs and preferences. One possibility makes more sense with the available data. It's like literature interpretation. While all views are potentially valid, some interpretations are better than others. I just don't buy the Huckleberry Finn was an alien implant theory.

 

[idunno]

> --I need none. it's your claim. And in your case, it doesn't follow.

That is something you would have to establish. You try by challenging
how I define "perfect" here, but as demonstrated below you fail in every
way possible.


> Words have meanings. I suggest you learn and use them.

Let's see... you're snidely suggesting that I learn how to use "words"
and their meaning, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to you to look
up the term in the context that it is being used (despite my
specifically bringing it up): Christian theology. ONLY the meaning of
"perfect" that Christian theologians use when they apply the term to
their god is relevant here because the argument is about a contradiction
between their description of their god as perfect and their attributing
various acts to their god. Other meanings of "perfect" aren't relevant
and an absence of a contradiction between those meanings of "perfect"
and acts attributed to the Christian god cannot qualify as a challenge
to the argument - that's committing the fallacy of equivocation. This
means that copying & pasting a list of definitions from a dictionary not
only fails to challenge the argument, it misses the point of the
argument completely.

You claim that perfection is not defined as lacking needs or wants, but
you demonstrate no knowledge of the various way sin which the concept is
defined. You demonstrate no knowledge that in the field of ontology, for
example, that is precisely how it is defined. You demonstrate no
knowledge of theology where this is how the concept is normally used. In
Summa Theologica, Aquinas writes: "we call that perfect which lacks
nothing of the mode of its perfection." As part of his proof that there
is but one god, he writes: "If then many gods existed, they would
necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to
one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one
of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of
them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist."
In a letter to Pope Urban, he also wrote: "That the Father lacks
nothing, there is no doubt: and the same is true of the Son or the Holy
Spirit."

A serious and thoughtful challenge would have demonstrated an
understanding of all this. There should be no need to say twice that you
need to focus on the theological concept of God as "perfect" and there
is no good reason for you to have reached for a standard dictionary to
try to make an argument. If you had a theological case to make - that is
to say, if you could demonstrate that "perfect" means something else in
theology than how it is used in the argument, or that the standard
theological definition of "perfect" doesn't create the contradiction
described - then you would have a potentially legitimate objection to
the argument. You didn't, so I must conclude that you don't and,
therefore, don't have any good reasons for rejecting the argument as it
stands. The reason you offer - that "perfect" is not defined in the
manner specified - is simply false in context.




--

 

[idunno]

Search for the thread "Proof of strong atheism". You'll get more than you care for.

cant find that link.Is it in religion?

 

[RandFan]

Do you really think that if you repeat yourself often enough, you will magically become correct?

STOP RESPONDING TO IT!

If you keep making the same stupid rebuttals I'm going to keep pointing out why you are wrong.

 

[RandFan]

And since neither "wanting" nor "having" is an imperfection, it's gone from one state of perfection to another.

Mr. Pot, meet Mrs. Kettle.

You keep making the same claim. I can only demonstrate why you are wrong. Wanting something implies not having something. If one were perfectly happy then one wouldn't want anything.

Now, if you don't want me to keep pointing out why you are wrong then stop making the very same claim over and over.

 

[RandFan]

{snipped}

 

[RandFan]

That is a question that has no answer by those temporally bound. It's an interesting point of departure for speculation, surely, but it requires, among other things, being able to ascertain all purposes, of God.

I don't see that as an available body of knowledge, as of now. Those who profess to know all of God's purposes have a slight credibility problem. Maybe more than slight.

DR

I think you are making this more difficult than it need be. If god created humans he either did it for a purpose or he didn't. Right?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You keep making the same claim. I can only demonstrate why you are wrong. Wanting something implies not having something. If one were perfectly happy then one wouldn't want anything.

At the very least, I imagine a perfectly happy being would want to continue being perfectly happy.

 

[mijopaalmc]

cant find that link.Is it in religion?

Here you go: Proof of Strong Atheism

Enjoy

 

[porch]

Okay, 1) God is perfect, and 2) God created the universe deliberately. If these are premises regarding the same God I'm thinking of, then we should also bear in mind some further premises: A) God exists outside of the universe (including time), yet also within it. B) Us puny mortals can't even begin to fathom the full scope of His greatness. Remember Raider's of the Lost Ark? To gaze directly upon His true nature melts your freakin' face off.

God made the rules that bind us. That doesn't mean that these rules bind Him. You think you can trip Him up with some rinky-dink logic puzzles?! "Like, OMG, could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it?" At this point I'd like to remind you all that to even try to give too detailed a description of The Almighty with our imperfect words is a great conceit, and approaching blasphemy. So, uh, watch your backs.

 

[RandFan]

At the very least, I imagine a perfectly happy being would want to continue being perfectly happy.

There's no question that we can find lot's of fun with such concepts given the limits of our language and the inherent problems of such absolutes.

Why would a god "want" to continue being perfectly happy? Would he not know that he is perfectly happy and being perfectly happy could never not be perfectly happy? "Want" implies the possibility that there could be a state in which god would not be happy thus causing him to "want" to always be happy. If you knew that you were immortal would you concern yourself with living? Would you worry about dying? Wouldn't your wanting to contue living be a trivial fact that would obviate want?

Yes. Of course it would.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, 1) God is perfect, and 2) God created the universe deliberately.

Why would a perfect being deliberately creat the universe?

Why create the universe now? Keeb in mind that god, if he or she exists has existed forever. There was no begining for god. So, here you've got this being that has existed perpetually, think back a billion years, now a billion times that and even a billion times that, a speck of time for god. So here he is, having always existed and always knowing that he would create a universe at precisely, when?

If these are premises regarding the same God I'm thinking of, then we should also bear in mind some further premises: A) God exists outside of the universe (including time)...

Time IS change. A thought cannot exist without change. Change cannot exist without time. You are creating square circles and calling it god.

At this point I'd like to remind you all that to even try to give too detailed a description of The Almighty with our imperfect words is a great conceit, and approaching blasphemy. So, uh, watch your backs.

So, stop thinking, shut up, and pray...

No thanks. If there is a god, and that is extremly unlikely there are a few premises that you need to consider.

1. God gave me a brain. I'm going to use it. If I was, in fact, designed by a supreme being I wasn't designed to ignore the universe and not ask hard questions. If god wanted compliant children perhaps he shouldn't have given us a brain and free will. He should have just made us permanant children.
2. A just god wouldn't be such an egotistical fool as to demand supplication. That's for the kings that existed at the time when a formalized concept of "god" came into being. Humans have moved on and many of us have stopped kissing the hind quarters of tyrants. Perhaps it's time to come up with a more enligtened deity.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

There's no question that we can find lot's of fun with such concepts given the limits of our language and the inherent problems of such absolutes.

Why would a god "want" to continue being perfectly happy? Would he not know that he is perfectly happy and being perfectly happy could never not be perfectly happy? "Want" implies the possibility that there could be a state in which god would not be happy thus causing him to "want" to always be happy. If you knew that you were immortal would you concern yourself with living? Would you worry about dying? Wouldn't your wanting to contue living be a trivial fact that would obviate want?

Hour late. Mind foggy. I'm pretty sure I followed that, but to be certain, I'll ask you kindly to clarify. Are you saying that a being which was perfectly happy could never--in any conceivable circumstances--become less than perfectly happy?

 

[AOK Tiger]

DrKitten,

I’ll admit from the start I am a bit tentative about posting this as you argue very well and will probably give me short shrift (I also generally agree with you on most things).

In this instance you are following a completely illogical line.

Idunno and randfan are spot on.

ANY logical definition of perfection would imply no needs or wants and in fact no CHANGE at all required.

You completely hedge around the topic by implying a state of perfection could include having needs. I don’t think you have really thought hard enough about that. Having a desire would mean something is unfulfilled and therefore CANNOT have been perfect in the first place.

Its all a matter of our take on what perfection is I will admit.. but the way more logical version implies NO needs etc !

 

[RandFan]

Hour late. Mind foggy. I'm pretty sure I followed that, but to be certain, I'll ask you kindly to clarify. Are you saying that a being which was perfectly happy could never--in any conceivable circumstances--become less than perfectly happy?

No, I'm saying that a perfect being could not everd, in any conceivable circimstance, become less than perfectly happy.

Assuming of course that happiness is an attribute of perfection. In all honesty, perfection is a silly concept that is logically untenable. However, once we decide that happiness is part of perfection then a perfect being would, by definition, have to always be perfectly happy.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

No, I'm saying that a perfect being could not everd, in any conceivable circimstance, become less than perfectly happy.

Assuming of course that happiness is an attribute of perfection. In all honesty, perfection is a silly concept that is logically untenable. However, once we decide that happiness is part of perfection then a perfect being would, by definition, have to always be perfectly happy.

Is this because circumstances which might make them unhappy could not possibly occur, or because they would always respond perfectly to such circumstances in such a way to maintain their happiness?

 

[RandFan]

Is this because circumstances which might make them unhappy could not possibly occur, or because they would always respond perfectly to such circumstances in such a way to maintain their happiness?

Because it is a ridiculous concept.

Perfect != Not Perfect

I have no idea how the person who creates the concept or perceives the concept overcomes or explains all of the problems inherent in such a ridiculous absolute.

I only know that once you construct this abstract concept of a perfect being you have set certain parameters that cannot be violated because to do so would render your concept imperfect. Now, I suppose that you could argue that happiness is not an attribute of perfection. Who knows? What the hell is perfect anyway? I don't know. I don't know where one goes to find which human attributes like happiness or euphoria a perfect being would possess. Apparently the state of Nirvana precludes lust and craving. In Eastern Philosophy want is clearly a no no.

So, until we discover a law of physics that spells out precisely what it means to be a perfect being I have simply no idea. I only know what a perfect being can't have if the concept of perfect is to be consistent. Want is not consistent with perfection.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Because it is a ridiculous concept.

Perfect != Not Perfect

I have no idea how the person who creates the concept or perceives the concept overcomes or explains all of the problems inherent in such a ridiculous absolute.

I only know that once you construct this abstract concept of a perfect being you have set certain parameters that cannot be violated because to do so would render your concept imperfect. Now, I suppose that you could argue that happiness is not an attribute of perfection. Who knows? What the hell is perfect anyway? I don't know. I don't know where one goes to find which human attributes like happiness or euphoria a perfect being would possess. Apparently the state of Nirvana precludes lust and craving. In Eastern Philosophy want is clearly a no no.

The God of which we speak is not Eastern philosophy. Why should the concept be beholden to its ideals?

So, until we discover a law of physics that spells out precisely what it means to be a perfect being I have simply no idea. I only know what a perfect being can't have if the concept of perfect is to be consistent. Want is not consistent with perfection.

So you keep saying.

The following are three of the first four definitions of perfect from dictionary.com. They seemed to me to be the most relevant. I do not believe that any of them preclude desire. Feel free to browse the others or find another definition if you feel I have omitted one that is applicable.

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

In this case, the type in question is being. By this definition, a perfect being is one in which all characteristics of beingness are realized to their full potential. I do not see how this precludes desire.

2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.

This one may come a little closer to denying desire, but I don't think it quite makes it. Here, by perfect being, we would mean one that could not be improved. This only precludes desire if we presume that all desire must be a desire for improvement.

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime

This is the one I imagine most people have had on their minds in this discussion. Only if you take desire to be a flaw, defect, or shortcoming does this disallow want. As noted, this is certainly the case in Eastern philosphies, but I see no reason to accept it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So a perfect being can't know the pleasure of losing something and then finding it? Or the bittersweet emotional pleasure you get from reading a sad novel or watching a sad movie?

I know, these are human emotions, but so are "happy" and "content" even when they're appended to "perfectly".

Still, I'm an atheist. I find more compelling arguments against omniscience. If there is an omniscient god, then future events are predetermined. If they're not predetermined, then they're not known.

Even if this limitless being can keep an eye on every quantum sparrow, I can't buy that the future is predetermined. Also, if so, it makes a difficult case for the other stuff that usually goes along with deism (but, I admit, are not part and parcel) such as morality, reward and punishment, prayer, salvation, the existence of ghastly suffering and tragedy, etc.

 

[RandFan]

The God of which we speak is not Eastern philosophy. Why should the concept be beholden to its ideals?

I never said it should. You are missing the point.

What is perfection? What is the objective criteria that we use to determine whether Eastern philosophy is right or not? The concept of perfection is at best, AT BEST, controversial. There are some very good arguments in favor of Eastern philosophy.

So why even try to figure out what constitutes perfection in the first place? It seems to me that you are saying, here, let's define perfection in this way and see if our ideas are consistent with that definition.

I'm sorry but that is just silly. It really is.

The following are three of the first four definitions of perfect from dictionary.com. They seemed to me to be the most relevant.

Relevant to what? Your preconcived notion about perfection?

A definition is not a pysical law that governs the universe. Words are used to convey meaning. They help us communicate not dictate physical laws or logical abstract reasoning.

I do not believe that any of them preclude desire. Feel free to browse the others or find another definition if you feel I have omitted one that is applicable.

I think I could make an argument from one of yours but I've already posted another that I prefer.

Perfection

1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose.

#2 If god wanted ice cream then it implies that god would some how be "better" if he had the ice cream.

When I eat Ice Cream, I often experience pleasure, well being and enjoyment. A state that is better than the state before.

How can god attain a "better" state if god is perfect?

Of course, this assumes much that we don't know. It's a ridiculous concept fraught with many vagaries.