The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

I did not claim the human brain/mind created matter.
My point is what is matter is always interdependent with the human brain/mind.
What is ‘matter’ do not pre-exists without the brain/mind.
This is ‘weird’ to many but this is a heavily debated issue within the philosophical community.

If as you refers,
“heaven and hell are located at the synapse where neurotransmitters qualify the electrical impulse that is fired from an axon and retrieved by a dendrite”
then,
so can the idea of God be ‘located’ within the activities of neurons.
If the idea of God is located within the neurons, then there is no God existing independently out there in the Universe.

I agree it is definitely time for philosophers to understand every religions ideas and thoughts thence to religious behaviors are driven by the neurons [and its activities] within the human brain.mind and not by a God [empirical as claimed] existing independently out there in the Universe.

I thought I had already pointed out that what is internal to an organism is also external. We eat what we are, chemically and we mate with our own kind. The God concept on a neuronal level suggests the existence of a God outside the body. We have no internal needs that are without external sources of supply. The God need in most folks, maybe in all,(See Schweitzer) suggests existence of a God outside the human body. If science and religion are to come together to study human nature, what better place to begin than with the firings and feedback among neurons. That this activity supports the God concept, does not make that concept unreal.

This is not a good thesis to begin with.
The thinking of a square-circle internally is impossible to be real externally.
What is internal to humans can only be possibly real if it is empirically possible.
God [internally generated by thoughts] as I had demonstrated is an impossibility within reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

This is a very bad argument as indicated above.

Internal sexual needs can be satisfy without any external sources of supply -e.g. a person of the opposite sex or even same sex. Note self-satisfaction.

No ifs, it is already being done. Note

and note;

Science need empirical evidences to prove whatever the theory.
But as I had demonstrated God CANNOT be empirical, thus God is an impossibility within Science and impossible to be real in the philosophical rational perspective.

The square circle argument is a straw man. Of course we can imagine illusions and impossibilities. What matters is that we have no innate need to do this.
About the neuronal evidence of a God experience, most enlightened individuals do not see this as a conflict of realities, but as evidence that the brain can do more than one thing. It considers far more than what can be objectively proved. BTW, objectivity amounts to the greatest possible consensus of subjective opinions. Communication is possible between two individuals given that they can share synonymous qualia; otherwise sheer “Facts” cannot be communicated. Science, with its methods of prediction, gives only our best guess to date of how the universe behaves. (See Popper).

No. It is a very relevant near equivalent. A square-circle is only possible in thought but not within the empirical rational reality.
The idea of God (note idea) is also possible in thought but not within the empirical rational reality. Otherwise produce the proof.

One can imagine empirical related illusions - e.g. a mirage with empirical elements. However one cannot imagine illusions that are impossibilities. To imagine one has to have images in the mind. Can you produce or draw and image of a square-circle or an ontological God?

As I have been arguing re OP, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential [innate] for an existential crisis where there is a critical psychological need [innate] for the majority to rely on a belief in God [the easiest and most effective] to to deal with the crisis in various degrees.

It is not evidence the brain can do more than one thing. Given there are no direct evidence of God, the neuronal evidence prove the God experience is nothing more than neuronal activities.

What is very obvious is these neuronal activities are driven by various psychological factors including proven mental illness, brain damage, drugs, hallucinogens, electrical wave stimulations, and other objective methods. I have provided evidences on research done in these areas.

That theists believe there is a real God [actually an illusion] existing out there is actually self-deception to ensure psychological security. This is because theists are ignorant of the fact of how the idea of God arise within their consciousness deep from their psyche as driven by psychological factors related to the existential crisis.

What theists actually experience is, a belief in a ‘real’ God enable them to feel psychological ease of mind and security, otherwise they feel very uneasy and uncomfortable.
I accept this is necessary given theists don’t have more efficient choices other than what they have now. But theists should not ignore the fact [psychological] which is a catch-22 and not an easy task to do.

You don’t seem to get the point from what I linked earlier.

Now if Science in its specific field of Neurotheology cannot answer the question of whether God exists “out there” or not, then what else can?
I bet you cannot have any better answers than ‘The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.’

I am very familiar with ‘objectivity is intersubjectivity’ and Popper who stated Scientific Theories are at best ‘polished conjectures’. Regardless of the above, the fact is Scientific theory works, are credible, repeatable, testable and justifiable.
The point is Science deal only with empirical based elements whilst supported by logic, mathematics and its Scientific Method and others.

Neuroscience is in its infancy. Who is to say what it can or cannot discover?
The underpinnings of psychology are material reactions. It cannot be said that these reactions do not contribute to what is thought. You cannot limit mind/brain to logic about things currently considered empirical.
Between the late 1980s and the current decade I’ve read dozens of works on neuroscience and its effects on philosophy. I find few scientists who would admit that neuroscience is as limited as you tend to believe.
Psychology is not the ultimate ground of Being.

Note my point in an earlier post;

The principle is the question of God is an impossibility to fit within the ambit of Science, thus neuroscience or whatever faculty of Science.

Scientific knowledge is the most objective and credible source of knowledge within empirical-rational reality.
As stated above the question of God cannot be within the ambit of Science at all.
Now you tell me what other modes of reality can you prove the reality of God?

Theists will insist God is real is a possibility but cannot provide justifications for a starting basis to begin to justify God’s existence.

Yes, Psychology is not the ultimate ground of Being, but psychology provides the reason why theists must believe in a God [illusory] to soothe the inherent and unavoidable existential angst.

It is psychology and psychiatry that expose the basis of the experience of God is from the brain when triggered by various things, like mental illnesses, brain damage, drugs, meditations, etc.

There are non-theistic religions and spirituality that recognize this psychological existential basis and dealt with the same issue psychologically.

Ever been to a therapist, Prismatic? Ever ask what the root cause of your fear and loathing of God might come from? After all, all beliefs are ultimately grounded in psychology. Everything you believe “is nothing more than neuronal activities.”

Obviously all human activities are related to the psychological. Why should I fear and loathe something that is an illusion and impossible?

My basis and starting point to critique the existence of God arise from this;

plus all other evils from this religion and other theistic religions.

Those Muslims involved committed the above atrocities as a divine duty to please a God which they believe is real and had promised them eternal life.
This is crazy as I have proven the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility and believers are relying on such an illusion to kill non-believers.

I have also proven with evidences the basis of a belief in a God is psychological and thus as Buddhism has done should deal with the same existential issue psychologically.

Have you ever asked why you are so SNARKY when you feel your belief and psychological security is threatened uncomfortably?

That’s what I’m asking. Why do you promulgate hate and fear of something that, according to you, cannot exist? What’s the ultimate ground of your anti-theist beliefs? It sure as hell ain’t Buddhism.

Your views are too shallow here.

If a schizophrenic chop off your right hand because he believed his ‘real’ ‘God -XYZ’ [illusion] commanded him to do so, would you hate and fear his ''God"? Surely the attention should be focused on his psychological state.

For theists who commit evils and violence against non-believers in the believe their God is real and commanded them to carry out their divine duty, I don’t hate nor fear their illusory God. Rather I am directing attention their psychology in why they believed in an illusory God and from that delusion commit evils and violence on non-believers.

That you believed I hate and fear God is your delusional belief.

I have explained in the earlier post [you missed] why I critique theism and highlight the belief in God is due to a psychology that led to real evils and violence, and not that God exists as real to be believed.
I believe your psychological reactions are the same, i.e. being snarky to my valid and rational criticisms of God.

The ultimate ground of God is pre-psychological and can be found in the organic underpinnings of brain/mind. One does not pick the middle of a process, psychology in this case, and claim that it is the ultimate ground of anything. The ultimate ground of God is in Being and is experienced as belonging. The precedent for belonging is not found in an idea, it is found in an experience of being part of a universe that has learned to see itself.

This pre-psychological has a ground which can be derived only on basis of developmental, or inclusive argument. God exists in consciousness in the same brain that’s arguing. This ground is borne out by Anselm"s problem of self derivation

But the critique against it is scholastic, and does not concern with the idea of narrowing difference between things, ideas and energy.

In fact the man god anthropomorphic idea works in reverse if evolution is interpreted in terms of God in man consisting of a presumed God in man. If the objects of evolution have already been attained prior to its conscious realization, nihilizing time in its transcendental manifestation, then its object-God, has a quality of having intrinsic objectivity as its foundation.

A psychology has also a further foundation, meaning the logical distinction between theism and non-theism. Logical priority begs the pre-logical but not by way of an intrinsic logic.

So, once language is acquired the logical basis can be inferred. Hence the immediate problem with the Ultimate basis requiring embodiment of the ideal prior to the acquisition of language.

Can such an acquisition be shown as having necessary developmental manifestations of intrinsic necessity for God, exclusive of any logical argument?

I believe that the closure between ritual and language implies a historical shift away from ritual . The Reformation proves witness to the diminishing of Roman Catholic ritual as uncontestable,

My argument is;

  1. The idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
  2. The organic underpinnings of brain/mind are empirically based elements.
  3. Therefore, the idea of God cannot [it is impossible] be linked with the organic underpinnings of brain/mind

From the above your claim is not even logical to start with, thus fallacious and false.

My point is;

  1. Psychology is the ultimate ground of all human behaviors.
  2. Believing in a God is a human mental activity/behavior.
  3. Therefore ‘Believing in a God’ is ultimately psychological.

As such the real ground of why people believe in a God should be dealt psychologically, not because an illusory and impossible God said so as claimed.

Note the critical term above is ‘experience’ which is empirical.
The ‘empirical’ [experience] just don’t jive with God which is pure reason, illusory and an impossibility [apple versus orange].

In both syllogisms, the premise is questionable and cannot be realized as fact from what follows. Besides a syllogism is a week form of proof
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Ergo, Socrates is all men.

Hilarious. All beliefs are human mental activities.

Premise 1 is also very strange. Psychology is a field of study. But let’s say you mean something like ‘cognitive processes’. This premise is not going to be accepted by a large percentage of biology, who are physicalists, and are more likely to say that cognitive process are the result of physical processes.

Actually it is your response that is hilarious which lack intelligence and based on ignorance.

Note:

  1. Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought.
  2. All human activities is related to behavior and mind ncluding conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought.
  3. Thus All human activities is psychologically based.

“Cognitive process” ??
Note this overlap between the physical and the mental [psychology];

Show me again where I am wrong and is hilarious?

Which premise is questionable.
The P1 of the first argument is proven here,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
What are your counter arguments against that argument?
This and the first argument is NOT meant to be proven as fact but only confined to reason.

Note the theists intended argument for the existence of God is based on pure crude reason and not direct empirical proof.
Therefore accordingly I have use reason [same sense] at a higher level to disproof the crude argument of the theists that God exists.
This is higher reason killing lower reasoning.

The second paragraph is can be empirically proven.
I have already given evidences of how a belief in God is linked to psychological factors in this OP.

In addition, note the origin of a belief in God is psychological unease.
The idea of God provide the psychological ease and security.
This is why when that psychological ease and security is threatened by non-believers’ actions e.g. criticisms of theism, drawing of cartoons, etc. SOME highly sensitive theists will go to the extreme of killing those who critique the religion.

Snark is one good example who felt threatened by by critiques of theism, thus his shooting of intellectual arrows and barbs at me in an attempt to kill my intellectual pursuit of the issue.

I have never claimed syllogism [via reason and intellect] is a strong form of proof.

The above syllogism is fishy,
Deductively it should be;
3. Socrates is mortal.

Note P1 is psychological [Hume] and conditional upon the past and never a certainty because who knows in the future it is possible for humans to live forever…

The path to knowledge is;

  1. Firstly it is based and leveraged on prior empirical experiences,
  2. Then the intellect conceptualize the experience as a hypothesis, via syllogism or otherwise.
  3. Finally the hypothesis must be empirically proven to become knowledge.

The problem with ‘God exists’ as I have demonstrated cannot even pass stage 1 to form a hypothesis in 2.
At stage 1 I have killed it with reason, God is illusory and an impossibility.

Whatever you arrogantly claim you have killed still survives in the minds of thoughtful people. God in the mind does not prove God does not exist outside the mind as attested by numerous people in all parts of the globe. Your Hume/Kant attacks on the efficacy of the senses do not stand up beside actual experience. Logic can prove or disprove anything, including itself. Wasn’t It Wittsgenstein (SP) who proved that mathematical logic cannot fathom ontology. Mathematical logic is hermetically sealed in its own way of seeing. It is not meant to be an analyzer of experiences in Being. It can substantiate reason, but fails to describe emotion.

As I had provided with evidence, ‘God in the mind’ is also attested VERY strongly and sincerely by people who suffered mental illnesses, brain damage, drug addicts, hallucinogen, meditations, electrical stimulation of the brain, during orgasm, etc.

Based on the above, it is highly possible the so-called prophets, messengers, mesiah, godmen, and the likes could be a candidate [patient, victim] of the above reasons.

At least I have evidences of how the experiences of God lead to the false claim God exists. Note when the patients are cured they don’t have the experiences of a God anymore.

Whatever exists in the mind is at best a hypothesis or speculation. The ultimate is such things in the mind must be proven with reasonable justifications. The most credible is the empirical-rational test, e.g. Science. What other basis can one verify the existence of a thing beside the most credible Science? Faith?

Note my counter against the reliability of actual experience of a real ‘God’ as listed above. Whatever the experience it must be justified solidly.

logic do not disprove itself. Logic will disprove bad thinking logically.

Wittgenstein view re mathematics versus ontology, not sure, link?
It is depend on the context related to the term ontology.
Ontology is general discussed in relation to an independent thing or being e.g. God. Such a basis of ontology as I have demonstrated is an illusion and an impossibility. The bottom line is where is the evidence and justifications of its existence as real?

Yes, mathematics and any other fields of knowledge must be qualified within its limited Framework and System. To translate any mathematics proof, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2 is real it has to be reflected within an empirical-rational reality. If not what other mode is possible?