Seem like you are running out of arguments and resorting to Ad hominem.
Applying critical thinking note the meaning of delusional;
I have proven yours is a ‘false or unrealistic beliefs’ and you keep on insisting despite confronted with sound arguments and you have no proofs to support your belief.
Never said I needed them.
And you fit the definition perfectly.
You agreed with such a belief.
You are simply babbling and making accusations without justifiable supporting points.
@ Prismatic 567. Stop using a strawman again.
Yes, both atheist and theists. They all agree that Prismatic 567 is delusional and stubbornly ignorant, has a geat problem with logic, does not understand Kant and Hume.
They all have proven him wrong, and he is still stubbornly ignoring this fact, unsuccessfully searching for arguments, remaining unable to find any, not knowing what he is talking about.
Snark, did you mean to not address my below questions?
Sorry. There’s a lot going on.
Repeatable and verifiable correlations can be made with FMRI scans, but correlation is not verification. It could be that some people don’t live in their heads so much and are therefore more aware of what’s going on in their lives.
Such scans can show that there is greater awareness in specific areas of the brains of theists
Which simply means they believe in God or attribute certain inexplicable experiences to God
Right. That’s why I said correlation is not verification.
It’s no problem at all. I’m just interested to get to the bottom of why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.
So correlation isn’t verification - what is verification that assures you so much that you have no right not to believe in a loving God of all possible things? If it’s not correlation then there must be some superior “evidence of experience” that doesn’t require correlation that you are going by in order to arrive at verification, no?
I have been following the research of the very famous Andrew Newberg,
His views on God and ‘spiritual’ experiences;
In his latest Book,
‘How Enlightenment Changes Your Brain’
The concept of ‘enlightenment’ as per Newberg has positive potentials for humanity but theism per se is not an effective tool for ‘enlightenment’ in comparison to non-theistic spiritualities.
Theism is a double-edged sword, while at present there is a net-pros from theism due to the current psychological state of the majority theists, the trend towards the future is the cons of theism are outweighing its pros.
Newberg’s research links spiritual experiences to positive effects and behavior but does not answer WHY theists believe in a God with its positive & critical negative baggage?
My hypothesis of this ‘WHY’ solely in the direction of psychology [neuro-psychology] and we can get a better understanding from multi-disciplinary approach to the question.
Science by default cannot be multi-disciplinary beyond its Scientific Framework and System, thus what we need is philosophy-proper which is like a ‘symphony conductor’ getting all individual instruments to perform as a whole.
Yes, but there is nothing overt about it. it is, in fact, very subtle, very personal. It’s in the little things, like something greater than myself guiding events in such a way that they naturally unfold in a way that got me to where I am today.
I want to emphasize the subtle of it. I’m sure you’ve seen videos of people falling into fountains or bumping into walls because they were distracted by their cell phones. Primitive man had brains very much like our own but didn’t have all the distractions we have today. Accordingly, it seems quite natural that people today are generally unaware of the subtleties that lead to the belief in God.
God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Anyone can believe all they want regardless of whether it is possible or impossible.
At present, given the current psychological state of the majority of humanity, there are no more-efficient and optimal ideology than theism in dealing with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis within the human psyche. So at present theism is a net-pro [positive] for humanity, else there will be terrible mental angst within the majority. Thus theists need to continue to believe in a God and adopt theistic religion and spiritualities to avoid psychological torments.
But the empirical evidence of current facts [terrible terror, evils and violence] from theism [especially Islam] is trending towards a net-con [negative] for humanity.
Note, this evil for example, i.e. statistics of deadly attacks
[there are other types of evils from this theistic religion and other theistic religions].
32,210 Islamic terror attacks involving deaths.
thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg
The main purpose of theism is to deal with a psychological existential crisis.
From the above, the trend is the cons of theism-in-general is outweighing its pros and thus humanity must take steps to find fool proof alternatives to replace theism to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
So the ‘bottom’ is not why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.
The ‘bottom’ is, due to the potential threats, it is optimal for humanity to replace theism with fool proof alternatives in the FUTURE not now.
I understand such a topic is very disturbing and uncomfortable to many theists at present.
But we need to discuss and take this issue now to develop effective strategies for the future.
You have yet to demonstrate that.
And the field of psychology has nothing at all credible to say about God or God believers.
This is like a squared-circle is impossible within an empirical-rational reality.
Do you want me to demonstrate that impossibility empirically?
The proposition ‘God is a possibility’ in purely by thoughts alone i.e. emerged from primal pure reason driven by psychological factors within the human pscyhe.
Thus the most effective approach as done here is to use higher cortical reasoning to kill lower [theistic] reasoning.
Since God is purely non-empirical, i.e. purely thought-based and I have proven God is an impossibility, God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
One cannot conflate the non-empirical with the empirical at all.
There are tons of materials on this issue.
Have you ever try to do a literature review and exhaust this topic?
This is how I know you are very empty inside from the posts you have posted so far.
Yes, there are. And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias.
What do you mean confirmation bias? I am sure this is on you
“And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias.”
because you are merely making an opinion without knowing my actual position.
It is not an opinion nor a guess, I have done the actual research and read loads [tons] of materials in reference to that topic.
Pantheists see God as nature so to them he is empirical reality just by a different name. That is not to be confused with the theist view of nature as evidence of Gods existence which is something entirely different. So it all depends on how one is actually defining God. If I think God is the Universe then he obviously exists. The devil
is therefore in the detail although most interpretations reference some meta physical or non physical capabilities which for me automatically invalidates his existence
Sorry, Spectrum. You’re irrational and irrelevant.
As long as you keep your ‘God’ within the empirical then there is an empirical possibility it can exists.
Then it is a question of what is the probability which in such a case is almost negligible.
Note Richard Dawkins as scientist and not a philosopher is in such a situation.
As a scientist, Science do not allow him to claim certainty in an empirical setting.
Thus at best he can only be an agnostic and has to make provision that there is a 1/7 possibility [his god belief scale] that God could exists. But somewhere in his mind, he think it is actually 0% possibility like Zeus or a Santa Claus but not being a philosopher he has no basis to express it.
This is why an empirical-rational basis [with philosophy] is the most effective to deliberate on the issue of God.
When you claim your pantheistic God is empirically based, there is a possibility for such a god to exist, but the possibility of an actual proof is very slim.
The real problem with a empirical-based pantheistic God is it has limitations.
An empirical God not being certain and absolute cannot be absolutely 100% in terms of any quality attributable to that God, thus is always below 100%. So in what % can one assign to one’s pantheistic God, 99%, 90% , 80%??. Because there is a gap, this leave room for another to claim a greater God that one’s claim, i.e. an inferior. The point is a typical God cannot inferior to another.
This is why even with a pantheist God like Brahman within Hinduism-Vedanta, such a God is claimed to be absolute or The Absolute [capital A] so that Brahman cannot be inferior to another God.
Thus if you want to claim your pantheistic god to be an empirical God, then you have to accept it has empirical limits, which is not typical of any ‘God.’
Generally there is no serious issue with a pantheistic or a panentheistic God which is not assigned any agency power in comparison to the Abrahamic monotheistic God with agency power.
Your opinion, OK.
Btw, what is your other nic?
No wonder …