The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

[Prismatic567]

I have been arguing in various posts, the ultimate cause of the emergence of the idea of God is basically psychological, i.e. due to something going in the human brain.

Re God exists and is real?
I am also trying to raise awareness, this same fundamentals of making things [like bitcoins, Dollar, any paper currency] exist and real based on beliefs, faith, trust of the system, Emotions, intersubjective consensus and nothing more, is the same with the claim God exists and is real. Just as these flimsy things such as Bitcoins and Dollars are groundless other than beliefs, they and God alike are human-made [collectively and intersubjectively].
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193685
viewtopic.php?p=2688311#p2688311

If God's existence [illusory like paper currencies and bitcoins] is not fully psychologically based, then what is it based on?

[James S Saint]

You are proselytizing your religion, Secularism. You are merely preaching. You know nothing of psychology, nothing of God or religion. You seem to have no ability to reason or understand what you read and arrogant beyond belief. You are blindly hateful and you lie.

then what is it based on?

Rationality that is clearly beyond you as you desperately strive to promote yourself.

[Prismatic567]

You are proselytizing your religion, Secularism. You are merely preaching. You know nothing of psychology, nothing of God or religion. You seem to have no ability to reason or understand what you read and arrogant beyond belief. You are blindly hateful and you lie.

As usual, Babbling again. How about some rational philosophical discussions instead of ad hominems.

then what is it based on?

Rationality that is clearly beyond you as you desperately strive to promote yourself.

What is driving you to be 'rational' [actually irrational] in this case?

There is some degree of rationality, but it is pseudo-rational, note Kant's view on this [mine];

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [God, Soul, the Whole Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

Kant was not aware during his time that the underlying cause that drove theists to cling to pseudo-rational ideas is ultimately psychological from an infection a "zombie parasite" which is actively gnawing within the psyche.

[phyllo]

I have been arguing in various posts, the ultimate cause of the emergence of the idea of God is basically psychological, i.e. due to something going in the human brain.

Re God exists and is real?
I am also trying to raise awareness, this same fundamentals of making things [like bitcoins, Dollar, any paper currency] exist and real based on beliefs, faith, trust of the system, Emotions, intersubjective consensus and nothing more, is the same with the claim God exists and is real. Just as these flimsy things such as Bitcoins and Dollars are groundless other than beliefs, they and God alike are human-made [collectively and intersubjectively].
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=193685
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1#p2688311

If God's existence [illusory like paper currencies and bitcoins] is not fully psychologically based, then what is it based on?

What is there to discuss?

For a person who believes that there are multiple realitities, every reality must be in the mind ... IOW every one of those realities is psychological.

[Prismatic567]

If God's existence [illusory like paper currencies and bitcoins] is not fully psychologically based, then what is it based on?

What is there to discuss?

For a person who believes that there are multiple realitities, every reality must be in the mind ... IOW every one of those realities is psychological.

I did not imply the above.
If the every reality is in the mind, then what reality is the mind in?
If the mind is say to be in reality X, then what is reality X in? then if X is in Y, then what is reality Y in ... thus the problem of infinite regression.

My point is, reality is fundamentally an emergent and manifesting into diversity.
(Don't ask 'emerge from what?' - that is irrelevant).
In such an emergence, fundamentally there is interactions and entanglement without dualism or monism but reality is spontaneous realization and actualization.
It is from such emergence that there is an expression of dualism within reality.

Why the psychological perspective is beneficial for humanity;

This new objectivity, then, "allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see."[5]:583
Thus Haraway is not only critiquing the idea that objectivity, as we have long understood it, is possible; she is also arguing that if we continue to approach knowledge-making in this way then we wash our hands of any responsibility for our truth claims.

In contrast, she is arguing, approaching knowledge-making from an embodied perspective forces us to take responsibility for our truth claims.

Note, "...forces us to take responsibility for our truth claims."

For theists all responsibilities are attributed to God, and even if genocides and other evils are committed, theists [a critical SOME not all] insist, God said so and permit it.

Now if theists understand their compulsion to believe in a God [overall with malignant elements] is from their own psychological problems as the root causes, then within by the rules of Problem Solving, they should resolve the root causes and eliminate or prevent whatever the problem.

Note that is what Buddhism is doing without any evil laden elements.

[phyllo]

I did not imply the above.
If the every reality is in the mind, then what reality is the mind in?
If the mind is say to be in reality X, then what is reality X in? then if X is in Y, then what is reality Y in ... thus the problem of infinite regression.

The fact that you wrote this shows that your concept of multiple realities does not work and you are forced to refer to a "reality" where the mind "is".

My point is, reality is fundamentally an emergent and manifesting into diversity.

If reality is emergent then it is emergent in the mind and therefore entirely psychological. Anything discussed will be purely in the mind.

And God exists in some of these realities and not in others. But that can be said of everything ... a dog, a table, and apple. So God is in no way unique.

If you ask for a "base" for the existence of God, then that "base" must also be psychological in your scheme of things. How could it be anything else? If there are no "real apples" then how could there be any "real anything"?

(Don't ask 'emerge from what?' - that is irrelevant).

People like James and I would call that "reality" and what is in the mind are thoughts/statements which individuals believe correctly reflect that one "reality".

Notice that you had to refer to "it" again.

In such an emergence, fundamentally there is interactions and entanglement without dualism or monism but reality is spontaneous realization and actualization.
It is from such emergence that there is an expression of dualism within reality.

It don't know what that means. Dualism seems to be beside the point.

[phyllo]

Note, "...forces us to take responsibility for our truth claims."

The only responsibility is to examine the claim, before making it, in a thorough and rational manner with an awareness of personal limitations.

For theists all responsibilities are attributed to God, and even if genocides and other evils are committed, theists [a critical SOME not all] insist, God said so and permit it.

This seems to be too general. A great many theists feel guilt and fear punishment from God, so they are not attributing responsibility to God.

Christianity would not even make sense if all responsibilities are attributed to God. There would be no free will, sin, virtue, remorse, atonement, etc.

[phyllo]

Now if theists understand their compulsion to believe in a God [overall with malignant elements] is from their own psychological problems as the root causes, then within by the rules of Problem Solving, they should resolve the root causes and eliminate or prevent whatever the problem.

Psychological problems?

On an island where there are three people - two "ordinary" and one "psychopath". The psychopath has the psychological problem which is his lack of empathy.

On an island where there are three people - one "ordinary" and two "psychopaths". The ordinary person has the psychological problem which is his empathy.

[James S Saint]

Now if theists understand their compulsion to believe in a God [overall with malignant elements] is from their own psychological problems as the root causes, then within by the rules of Problem Solving, they should resolve the root causes and eliminate or prevent whatever the problem.

Psychological problems?

On an island where there are three people - two "ordinary" and one "psychopath". The psychopath has the psychological problem which is his lack of empathy.

On an island where there are three people - one "ordinary" and two "psychopaths". The ordinary person has the psychological problem which is his empathy.

You don't seem to understand.

The Earth was really flat years ago because the consensus believed that it was flat.
And God really existed years ago because the consensus believed that God existed.
And Prism is really right about all of his arguments because the consensus .... emmm.. wait.
The consensus is that Prism's arguments have been ... emmm..
.. hold on here.

Let's see here...
The real consensus here is that Prism's arguments have been ...
No, no ... that doesn't work.

Wait...

Reality is the consensus, right?
The consensus is reality, aka "what is real".
So when the consensus (aka "intersubjectivety") says that X is real, then X is real, no more to say about it.
And the current consensus says that Prism's argument's are ... well ... irrational trash, whether the conclusion is correct or not.

So it must be true that Prism's arguments are ...
... damn still can't get it to work.

Damn..

Let's see,

• 1) Consensus = reality.
• 2) Consensus => Prism's arguments = irrational trash.
• 3) Therefore, reality is that Prism's arguments = irration....

Nah, nah nah.

I guess Prism is just too deep for me to figure this out. Prism, The Prophet, will have to reveal to us lowlies how the "logic" works.

[Prismatic567]

I did not imply the above.
If the every reality is in the mind, then what reality is the mind in?
If the mind is say to be in reality X, then what is reality X in? then if X is in Y, then what is reality Y in ... thus the problem of infinite regression.

The fact that you wrote this shows that your concept of multiple realities does not work and you are forced to refer to a "reality" where the mind "is".

My point is, reality is fundamentally an emergent and manifesting into diversity.

If reality is emergent then it is emergent in the mind and therefore entirely psychological. Anything discussed will be purely in the mind.

And God exists in some of these realities and not in others. But that can be said of everything ... a dog, a table, and apple. So God is in no way unique.

If you ask for a "base" for the existence of God, then that "base" must also be psychological in your scheme of things. How could it be anything else? If there are no "real apples" then how could there be any "real anything"?

(Don't ask 'emerge from what?' - that is irrelevant).

People like James and I would call that "reality" and what is in the mind are thoughts/statements which individuals believe correctly reflect that one "reality".

Notice that you had to refer to "it" again.

In such an emergence, fundamentally there is interactions and entanglement without dualism or monism but reality is spontaneous realization and actualization.
It is from such emergence that there is an expression of dualism within reality.

It don't know what that means. Dualism seems to be beside the point.

The last point "spontaneous realization and actualization" is a critical major premise. If you don't understand then everything fall apart [not deductive].

Crudely, even in the Bible there is a recognition of such a principle, i.e.

Matthew 6:25-34 American Standard Version (ASV)
25 Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment?
26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they?
27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto [a]the measure of his life?

28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

The above [crude example] is in a way an analogy of 'emergence' but this emergence is driven by God.
In my case, what I considered 'emergence' is spontaneous without a God [which is an impossibility].

In 6:25-34, it would appear God is commanding Christians not to give a damn with the World and just trust God will do everything. No that is not the case. What the above verses meant is one must flow with 'emergence' while as the same time spontaneously and simultaneously "flow" with the turbulence of empirical World.

Note Flow:

In positive psychology, flow, also known as the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.

One can understand the above fundamental principles without God in the picture more effectively from Eastern philosophies.
I mentioned the theistic Gita's - 'Act but do not be attached to the fruits [good or bad] of actions."
In non-theistic Buddhism, it is "Act on the basis of emptiness" as reflected in the 10th image of the Ten Bulls, see below;

And God exists in some of these realities and not in others. But that can be said of everything ... a dog, a table, and apple. So God is in no way unique.

I did not say God exists in some specific reality but not in others.

I had stated God exists only in thought-reality as with every thing that is thought.
Within the spectrum of thoughts, there is the emergence of various realities as conditioned to their respective Framework and System.
Common Sense reality infers the Sun moves round the Earth, but that is not Scientific reality. There are various perspectives in how we cognize the what-is and relation between the Sun and Earth.
A dog, a table, and apple, and the likes can be verified and justified within an empirical-rational reality.

There are thoughts which exist in thought-reality only but impossibility even logically, e.g. a square-circle.

The idea [philosophical ideas are not concepts] of God is one of the set of 3 ideas [with an ontological SOUL, the Whole Universe] that are seemingly possible to theists, but are actually illusions arising from transcendental logic.
The ultimate ground of how these ideas arose is psychological -existential crisis from a zombie parasite.

If you ask for a "base" for the existence of God, then that "base" must also be psychological in your scheme of things. How could it be anything else? If there are no "real apples" then how could there be any "real anything"?

The are no absolute real apples but there are empirically real apples which can be verified and justified to be true.
God exists only in thought-reality but not in the empirical-rational reality. Tell me what other reality [beside thought and empirical] can God exists which can be verified and justified.

(Don't ask 'emerge from what?' - that is irrelevant).

People like James and I would call that "reality" and what is in the mind are thoughts/statements which individuals believe correctly reflect that one "reality".

Notice that you had to refer to "it" again.

Note my explanation of spontaneous and simultaneous emergence and engagement.

"IT" ??? this is a problem with language which I have no choice but to use in such a forum.
Note Wittgenstein's warning on the limitation of language in his 'Language Games'.
Zen avoid this limitation by using meaningless 'Koans' e.g. "What is the sound of one hand clapping."

[Prismatic567]

Now if theists understand their compulsion to believe in a God [overall with malignant elements] is from their own psychological problems as the root causes, then within by the rules of Problem Solving, they should resolve the root causes and eliminate or prevent whatever the problem.

Psychological problems?

On an island where there are three people - two "ordinary" and one "psychopath". The psychopath has the psychological problem which is his lack of empathy.

On an island where there are three people - one "ordinary" and two "psychopaths". The ordinary person has the psychological problem which is his empathy.

My point is theists has to understand what led them to theism is due to a psychological 'problem' i.e. an existential dilemma.

Btw, empathy in general not a recognized 'problem' for humanity. 'Psychopathy' is a recognized psychiatric problem in the DSM-V.

What you presented above is the effect of primal instinct, i.e. tribalism and the majority recognized the minority as a threat. This instinct has survival values but can be a problem in various situations, social, religion, politics, etc.

Nevertheless, both psychopaths [in degrees] and those who are empathic would be better of if they made a point to understand the underlying psychological root causes [where they can] so they can resolve whatever the associated problems.

[James S Saint]

Now if theists understand their compulsion to believe in a God [overall with malignant elements] is from their own psychological problems as the root causes, then within by the rules of Problem Solving, they should resolve the root causes and eliminate or prevent whatever the problem.

Psychological problems?

On an island where there are three people - two "ordinary" and one "psychopath". The psychopath has the psychological problem which is his lack of empathy.

On an island where there are three people - one "ordinary" and two "psychopaths". The ordinary person has the psychological problem which is his empathy.

You don't seem to understand.

The Earth was really flat years ago because the consensus believed that it was flat.
And God really existed years ago because the consensus believed that God existed.
And Prism is really right about all of his arguments because the consensus .... emmm.. wait.
The consensus is that Prism's arguments have been ... emmm..
.. hold on here.

Let's see here...
The real consensus here is that Prism's arguments have been ...
No, no ... that doesn't work.

Wait...

Reality is the consensus, right?
The consensus is reality, aka "what is real".
So when the consensus (aka "intersubjectivety") says that X is real, then X is real, no more to say about it.
And the current consensus says that Prism's argument's are ... well ... irrational trash, whether the conclusion is correct or not.

So it must be true that Prism's arguments are ...
... damn still can't get it to work.

Damn..

Let's see,

• 1) Consensus = reality.
• 2) Consensus => Prism's arguments = irrational trash.
• 3) Therefore, reality is that Prism's arguments = irration....

Nah, nah nah.

I guess Prism is just too deep for me to figure this out. Prism, The Prophet, will have to reveal to us lowlies how the "logic" works.

Help us out here, Seer and Prophet of all rationality.
Reveal to us the logic.
.. or is it that logic doesn't count .. this time?

[phyllo]

The are no absolute real apples but there are empirically real apples which can be verified and justified to be true.

Let me remind you :

Prismatic wrote :
Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

Prismatic wrote :
I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me 'what is the really real apple on the table'?

If they cannot demostrate a "really real apple" then neither can you and therefore all your realities are mental constructs.

God exists only in thought-reality but not in the empirical-rational reality.

Both "thought-reality" and "empirical-rational reality" are thoughts in your mind. So what if (allegedly) God exists in one and not the other?
Surely, these multiple realities must have equal merit.

Furthermore, you have multiple "empirical-rational realitites" - for example, there is one in which an apple "exists" and one where the atoms exist but not the apple itself and one where energy exists but not the apple or the material of the apple.

[phyllo]

Btw, empathy in general not a recognized 'problem' for humanity. 'Psychopathy' is a recognized psychiatric problem in the DSM-V.

It seems that my example flew right over your head.

Who determines what is a "psychological problem", that it needs removing and what the correct cure involves?

If one identifies that 'fear of death' is a psychological problem, then :

... perhaps a little fear of death is healthy and prevents people from being reckless, being callous, and careless.

... perhaps a belief in a merciful God and an afterlife is the best cure.

Who is to decide if not the individual with the "problem"?

If one looks at the physical body, one sees that it typically contains bacteria and viruses. It has structural wear and damage. It takes on repetitive stains and physical damage. But the majority of that does not prevent a person from living a fullfilling life.
The same may be said for psychological problems.

[Prismatic567]

The are no absolute real apples but there are empirically real apples which can be verified and justified to be true.

Let me remind you :

Prismatic wrote :
Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

Prismatic wrote :
I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me 'what is the really real apple on the table'?

If they cannot demonstrate a "really real apple" then neither can you and therefore all your realities are mental constructs.

"really real apple" meant an absolutely real apple as claimed by Philosophical Realists, i.e. within the following principles,

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
...
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

I wonder you understand the above?
Like Plato's Forms, when a realist see an "apple" what they believe [cognized] is only a approximation of the really-real-apple out there.
This is as if, the realist is living in one World and there is another parallel World with the real apple.
What realist know and cognize of an apple is merely relying on the Correspondence theory of truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth

Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

For me, I have never claimed there is a really-real-apple but the 'apple' that I see and touched is an empirical reality that is interdependent and entangled with my being.

Note mine is 'interdependent' and intersubjective while yours [as with Philosophical Realists] is an "independent" apple.

God exists only in thought-reality but not in the empirical-rational reality.

Both "thought-reality" and "empirical-rational reality" are thoughts in your mind. So what if (allegedly) God exists in one and not the other?
Surely, these multiple realities must have equal merit.

It is obvious God exists within thought-reality as with all other things, apples, dogs, etc.

What exists as thoughts can be objective truths, knowledge, lies, falsehoods, imaginations, dreams, or illusions, etc.
Things that exist as thoughts only do not have merit in terms of knowledge which is Justified True Beliefs.
As a Standard, the most credible knowledge to mankind is objective scientific knowledge, others has a range of credibility with illusions as the lowest credibility in terms of Justified True Beliefs.

The idea of God as I had demonstrated is a transcendental illusion.

What humanity should be most concern with the illusory idea of God is the consequences of a belief in God had ended with the belief God is empirically real who listens and answers prayers, had sent his message with a holy book containing loads of evil laden element and inspiring SOME [pool of 300 million] of naturally evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence on non-believers and even their own believers.

These very real evils and violence are commanded by something illusory, i.e. an illusory God . This is why, because of the terrible consequences, such thoughts must be questioned critically.

Furthermore, you have multiple "empirical-rational realitites" - for example, there is one in which an apple "exists" and one where the atoms exist but not the apple itself and one where energy exists but not the apple or the material of the apple.

Yes, in this case these sub-realities are basically under one umbrella empirical-rational reality, i.e. Scientific-based empirical rational reality.

Common sense reality is like the obvious 'Sun moving across the sky of the fixed flat Earth from one horizon to the other' and certain to appear the next morning.

There is no ONE absolute independent Reality that encompass all of the above. If you claim so, show me how can you prove and justified it credibly?

[Zero_Sum]

I have been arguing in various posts, the ultimate cause of the emergence of the idea of God is basically psychological, i.e. due to something going in the human brain.

Re God exists and is real?
I am also trying to raise awareness, this same fundamentals of making things [like bitcoins, Dollar, any paper currency] exist and real based on beliefs, faith, trust of the system, Emotions, intersubjective consensus and nothing more, is the same with the claim God exists and is real. Just as these flimsy things such as Bitcoins and Dollars are groundless other than beliefs, they and God alike are human-made [collectively and intersubjectively].
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193685
viewtopic.php?p=2688311#p2688311

If God's existence [illusory like paper currencies and bitcoins] is not fully psychologically based, then what is it based on?

If it is psychological why don't atheists share in it?

[phyllo]

For me, I have never claimed there is a really-real-apple but the 'apple' that I see and touched is an empirical reality that is interdependent and entangled with my being.

Right. And that means that every reality that you are talking about is dependent on the minds of the people who create it. Every one of the realities depends on a particular framework and the psychology which cause that framework to be adopted.
It's meaningless for you to talk about "reality" without referring to a particular framework/context.

But in fact, you do that all the time. In the OP, you ask a question without specifying a particular framework. You make general statements without specifying the framework.

Why and how can you do that?

The answer is that you have a particular default "reality" in you mind when you post a statement. You think that it is the "reality" that everyone ought to have at that particular instant. But people are not in you head. They can't know what you are specifically thinking.

It is obvious God exists within thought-reality as with all other things, apples, dogs, etc.

What exists as thoughts can be objective truths, knowledge, lies, falsehoods, imaginations, dreams, or illusions, etc.
Things that exist as thoughts only do not have merit in terms of knowledge which is Justified True Beliefs.
As a Standard, the most credible knowledge to mankind is objective scientific knowledge, others has a range of credibility with illusions as the lowest credibility in terms of Justified True Beliefs.

The idea of God as I had demonstrated is a transcendental illusion.

Here you are talking as if people ought to adopt a particular framework in a particular situation. And I will go out on a limb and say that it is the framework the YOU are using. You don't actually name a specific framework.
But why ought they use that framework rather than another?

"Credible knowledge" based on which framework. It's not credible in all frameworks ... that you would imply an absolute credibility.

Yes, in this case these sub-realities are basically under one umbrella empirical-rational reality, i.e. Scientific-based empirical rational reality.

Did you just invent that word "sub-realities"? What does it mean? How do "sub-realities" relate to the umbrella "empirical-rational reality"?

Common sense reality is like the obvious 'Sun moving across the sky of the fixed flat Earth from one horizon to the other' and certain to appear the next morning.

"Common sense reality" is a generic term. There are actually Tom, Dick and Harry "realities". If Tom's compass is not working and he is confused about east and west then his "reality" may have the sun rising in the west and setting in the east. So not only are multiple realities dependent on a framework, they actually dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals.

What a mess.

There is no ONE absolute independent Reality that encompass all of the above. If you claim so, show me how can you prove and justified it credibly?

You're the one claiming multiple realities and you have not shown that it produces anything but an inconsistent, confusing mess.

[Prismatic567]

I have been arguing in various posts, the ultimate cause of the emergence of the idea of God is basically psychological, i.e. due to something going in the human brain.

Re God exists and is real?
I am also trying to raise awareness, this same fundamentals of making things [like bitcoins, Dollar, any paper currency] exist and real based on beliefs, faith, trust of the system, Emotions, intersubjective consensus and nothing more, is the same with the claim God exists and is real. Just as these flimsy things such as Bitcoins and Dollars are groundless other than beliefs, they and God alike are human-made [collectively and intersubjectively].
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193685
viewtopic.php?p=2688311#p2688311

If God's existence [illusory like paper currencies and bitcoins] is not fully psychologically based, then what is it based on?

If it is psychological why don't atheists share in it?

Ultimately ALL humans at the very ultimate root share the same psychological existential drive.

It is like;
1. Ultimate Psychological existential drive - divide the following paths;
...1.a Theistic drives
...1.b. Secular and non-theistic drives

The Ultimate Psychological existential drive is the substance but it break into two different pathways and forms.

It is like the generic potential sexual drive that is common in ALL humans but it breaks into three main different forms, i.e. male, female, others.

Thus ALL humans suffers the same psychological angst.
Why non-theists are not driven into theism but rather non-theism, is due to various reasons, e.g. social, cultural, rationality, critical thinking, wisdom, rational spirituality philosophy-proper, indifferent, etc.

To deal with the similar unavoidable psychological angst, non-theists resorts to all sorts [many] of approaches to suppress and soothe the psychological angst. One of the problematic approach to deal with such angst is drugs and opioids which has their terrible negativity and tragedies.
There are many non-theists [like myself] who are divorced or are indifferent to theism due to critical thinking, wisdom, rational spirituality, philosophy-proper and the likes.

Another point is there is no guarantee and permanence in the critical thinking approach to divert from theism. Because the existential crisis is inherent and unavoidable, the neurons that inhibit one from theism can give way when they atrophize as one gets to the later stages of life.
Note the very world famous and notable atheist, Anthony Flew shocked and surprised all this followers when he turned to God, i.e. as deist. Note this research.

Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

I hope my neural inhibitors do not give way like Anthony Flew when I grow older.

[surreptitious75]

To deal with the similar unavoidable psychological angst non theists resorts to all sorts [ many ] of approaches to suppress and soothe

I do not regard the inevitability of my death as something angst ridden as I simply accept it as something that will eventually happen

[Prismatic567]

For me, I have never claimed there is a really-real-apple but the 'apple' that I see and touched is an empirical reality that is interdependent and entangled with my being.

Right. And that means that every reality that you are talking about is dependent on the minds of the people who create it. Every one of the realities depends on a particular framework and the psychology which cause that framework to be adopted.
It's meaningless for you to talk about "reality" without referring to a particular framework/context.

But in fact, you do that all the time. In the OP, you ask a question without specifying a particular framework. You make general statements without specifying the framework.

Why and how can you do that?

The answer is that you have a particular default "reality" in you mind when you post a statement.
You think that it is the "reality" that everyone ought to have at that particular instant. But people are not in you head. They can't know what you are specifically thinking.

Yes, I have asserted all realities are conditioned upon some kind of Framework and System.
As such all that I have asserted is based some kind [specific or in combination] of Framework and System.

Do I have to specify every Framework and System I had used?
Note the logical, rational, Scientific, philosophical are very obvious.
If you are not sure, then ask, I will answer. This is not an issue.

Note the basis of my OP is this;

1. God is an impossibility - [frameworks referred are reason-logical, empirical]
2. God is driven by psychological factors - [most probable i.e. evidence from Psychological framework]
3. I had used philosophy as an overriding controller.

There should not be any hidden or unknown Framework and Systems relied upon, these must be transparent. If not sure, then ask.

It is obvious God exists within thought-reality as with all other things, apples, dogs, etc.

What exists as thoughts can be objective truths, knowledge, lies, falsehoods, imaginations, dreams, or illusions, etc.
Things that exist as thoughts only do not have merit in terms of knowledge which is Justified True Beliefs.
As a Standard, the most credible knowledge to mankind is objective scientific knowledge, others has a range of credibility with illusions as the lowest credibility in terms of Justified True Beliefs.

The idea of God as I had demonstrated is a transcendental illusion.

Here you are talking as if people ought to adopt a particular framework in a particular situation. And I will go out on a limb and say that it is the framework the YOU are using. You don't actually name a specific framework.
But why ought they use that framework rather than another?

"Credible knowledge" based on which framework. It's not credible in all frameworks ... that you would imply an absolute credibility.

All Framework and Systems I used must be transparent. I have listed them above. If not sure, then ask.

You can use any other Framework and System but you need to qualify and explain them.
You tell me what is your basis and framework to support the credibility of your conclusions, re God exists?

"Credible knowledge" is not absolute but comes in various degrees depending on the type of Framework and System. At present the most credible knowledge is that from the Scientific Framework and System even though at best they are merely "polished conjectures" [Popper].

The central theistic doctrines i.e. God exists [as real and absolute] is of the lowest degrees [I say ZERO] in term of credible knowledge.
Show me in what way can theism's 'God exists' can be objectively credible?

Yes, in this case these sub-realities are basically under one umbrella empirical-rational reality, i.e. Scientific-based empirical rational reality.

Did you just invent that word "sub-realities"? What does it mean? How do "sub-realities" relate to the umbrella "empirical-rational reality"?

What is wrong with that?
It is so common there are main-set and subsets.

The umbrella "empirical-rational reality" encompasses all basis of reality that can be supported by empirical evidences with rational and philosophical justifications.
For example Science is not based purely on empirical evidence but these evidence are subjected to a rational Scientific Method that include elements of logic and philosophy-proper.
There are other empirical-rational framework and systems like legal, economics, sports, health, etc. There is a 'real' murder but that is only qualified to the legal framework and system.

Common sense reality is like the obvious 'Sun moving across the sky of the fixed flat Earth from one horizon to the other' and certain to appear the next morning.

"Common sense reality" is a generic term. There are actually Tom, Dick and Harry "realities". If Tom's compass is not working and he is confused about east and west then his "reality" may have the sun rising in the west and setting in the east. So not only are multiple realities dependent on a framework, they actually dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals.

What a mess.

You are in the mess.
I have not deny the fact, multiple realities dependent on a framework are fundamentally dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals, INTERSUBJECTIVELY.

There is no ONE absolute independent Reality that encompass all of the above. If you claim so, show me how can you prove and justified it credibly?

You're the one claiming multiple realities and you have not shown that it produces anything but an inconsistent, confusing mess.

Seem yours is very thick.
There are various realities that are conditioned upon its Framework and Systems and it is obvious they have their benefits to mankind, e.g. legal, economics, sports, health, etc.
It is very critical that humans understand the existence of such multiple realities and the elements and mechanics plus their assumptions, limitations, boundaries, etc. so that we can optimize its benefits to the individual and humanity.

Those who do not understand the above concepts of Framework and Systems will think Science is King and represent the absolute truth, leading to Scientism. When we understand the details, Scientific knowledge are merely at best 'polished conjectures' but we use it for our benefits while being mindful of its limitations and the potential to be exploited by evil prone people.

From my perspectivem my reference to the multiple realities is as follows,
1. I have relied on the Philosophy-proper framework to understand why theism [in part -re Islam] is so malignantly evil.
2. I have used abductive logic to produce the major and minor premises and relied on philosophy with empirical framework to justify my premises.
3. From general logic I produced a logical syllogism.
4. Research from psychology has indicated humans the idea of God can arise from mental illness, drugs, brain damage, etc. [evidences provided].

My proposals are directed to benefits to humanity as a whole in terms of perpetual peace.
However for the theists, their theism is Mainly for a very SELFISH purpose to deal with the individual's psychological angst [SOS].

[Prismatic567]

To deal with the similar unavoidable psychological angst non theists resorts to all sorts [ many ] of approaches to suppress and soothe

I do not regard the inevitability of my death as something angst ridden as I simply accept it as something that will eventually happen

Do you understand what control you most of the time is your subconscious mind [90% -best guess] and conscious mind [10%].

People hear about ‘positive thinking’ but when they attempt to put it into practice it doesn’t work because there is a step missing. The mind runs the biology but the important thing to recognize is that there are two parts to the mind, the conscious and the subconscious and that there are two very critical factors that distinguish the two parts.

1. When it comes to processing information the subconscious mind is over a million times more powerful than the conscious mind.

2. Neuro scientists have revealed that the conscious mind only operates at best about five percent of the day. Ninety five percent or more of the time (for most people ninety nine percent) we run our lives from the automatic processor, the subconscious mind.
https://www.brucelipton.com/resource/in ... and-matter

The above is a reasonable crude assessment.
However one can reflect on one's own experiences, anecdotals accounts and do extensive research on this topic to get a better idea.

Say what you like consciously, but in general your domineering unconscious mind will not give a damn to what you consciously want.
The common example is, most people [newbies] want to feel confident on stage, public speaking, presentation, contests, but inside their subconscious mind will make them a nervous wreck which they cannot consciously control to their conscious expectations. It is with the same with the subliminal unavoidable angst.

[surreptitious75]

Would it be true to say that what exists in the conscious originated in the subconscious for while they
are separate parts of the mind that does not mean they are completely independent from each other

[Prismatic567]

Would it be true to say that what exists in the conscious originated in the subconscious for while they
are separate parts of the mind that does not mean they are completely independent from each other

Yes, what exists in the conscious mind is heavily influenced by the subconscious mind. Both are interdependent but the subconscious as noted is much more powerful [no exact measurements but the quote using 'a million times' as emphasis]

The subconscious and conscious minds are not precisely in separate parts of the brain but they two different systems of cognition where neurons are intertwined and cross-connected .

There are lots of research into the subconscious mind the related hard problem of 'consciousness' and how it influences the ways humans cognize reality [realities] as they are. Note Antonio Damasio and others. At present we know very little of the subconscious mind but we are on our way to understand more of it via the Human Connectome Project.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Note this point;

In modern cognitive psychology, many researchers have sought to strip the notion of the unconscious from its Freudian heritage, and alternative terms such as "implicit" or "automatic" have come into currency.
These traditions emphasize the degree to which cognitive processing happens outside the scope of cognitive awareness, and show that things we are unaware of can nonetheless influence other cognitive processes as well as behavior.

[Zero_Sum]

Religion or the belief in God is an acquired psychological state of culture. Faith itself is psychosomatic.

[phyllo]

Do I have to specify every Framework and System I had used?

Yes.

Note the logical, rational, Scientific, philosophical are very obvious.

Obvious when?

If you are not sure, then ask, I will answer. This is not an issue.

There should not be any hidden or unknown Framework and Systems relied upon, these must be transparent. If not sure, then ask.

All Framework and Systems I used must be transparent. I have listed them above. If not sure, then ask.

It's just silly to have to ask all the time. And it shows a fundamental flaw in your concept.

Note the basis of my OP is this;

1. God is an impossibility - [frameworks referred are reason-logical, empirical]
2. God is driven by psychological factors - [most probable i.e. evidence from Psychological framework]
3. I had used philosophy as an overriding controller.

Your OP is based on a set of assumptions/framework. Almost everyone has pointed out the flaws in those assumptions/framework yet you hold on to your conclusions. Why? Because the conclusions make sense within your assumptions/framework. If you look beyond the assumptions/framework it all falls apart. You have trapped yourself in this particular mental construct.

You are in the mess.
I have not deny the fact, multiple realities dependent on a framework are fundamentally dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals, INTERSUBJECTIVELY.

I see one reality which is independent of my thoughts. I have thoughts about that reality and I can test the validity of those thoughts because the external reality serves as an unbiased reference.
All individuals have equal access to that external reality. If their thoughts about it are different from mine, then we can evaluate those thoughts by referring to the external reality. We can come to conclusions about the merits of our thoughts.