The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

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.

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

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.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon … y_of_truth

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.

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 :astonished: . This is why, because of the terrible consequences, such thoughts must be questioned critically.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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].

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

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.

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.
humanconnectomeproject.org/

Note this point;

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

Yes.

Obvious when?

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

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.

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.

Such an affirmative reflect very intellectual immaturity.
In general, the Framework and Systems used are very obvious, e.g. common sense, scientific, legal, political, economics, moral, logic, etc…
One only need to bring a Framework and System if the issue is contentious and there is a real need to do so as I had done in my discussions.

In any discussion where I discuss any syllogism then it is within the logic Framework. Matters involved the Scientific Framework [if you are informed of Science] is so obvious especially in a forum like this. If you are no sure then ask.

If you are well informed, for the obvious there is no need to ask all the time.

Normally for any normal scientific theories, it is obvious that is from the scientific framework.
For any contentious issue, it is very common to understand the perspective [Framework] from which the other side is relying on. For example it is necessary to understand whether one is relying on the Philosophical Realist or Philosophical anti-Realist view.

The big issue is you do not even understand the criticalness of the necessity to look at the the Framework and System you are relying upon to assert your conclusions. This is why you are such a mess.

I don’t give a damn with your claim 'almost everyone … pointed flaw." What is critical is whether counters raised against my argument are soundly justified or not.

It is not MY framework.
As I had pointed out I relied on various recognized framework and system.
Tell me within each recognized framework, logic, philosophy, & psychology where did I go wrong?

My thoughts are different from yours because you are relying on the Philosophical Realism’ framework, i.e.

While I am relying on the Philosophical Anti-Realism Framework [of which there are many sub-systems].

My Philosophical Anti-Realism views are mostly based on the Kantian Framework.

The point is whose philosophical Framework, yours or mine is more philosophically sound.

That is what I have been doing.
I assert your basis, i.e. Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory which ultimately lead to an illusory world and your favored so-called ‘solipsism’.

I agree with “evaluate those thoughts”. But you are not evaluating rather you are jumping to conclusion and condemning my views without rational justifications.

I already told you and you ignored it.

Error in psychology : You misunderstand the psychology of theists. A monotheist confronted by a person with a rival god has no reason to augment the power of his god since all rival gods are false. The ONE TRUE GOD has no competitors.

Error in science : You make no reference to any feature of the universe. Therefore, your syllogism cannot reflect the state of the universe. The syllogism is purely a construct in your mind.

Error in logic : You don’t qualify you conclusion as only applying to the God that you have defined. Your conclusion (“Therefore God is an impossibility.”) is mistakenly too broad- it appears to apply to all gods of any sort.

Error in ‘who knows what’ category : Your strange definition of absolute and relative perfection. There have been so many posts about it, I’m not adding any more firewood.

Wow. Did not see that coming.

Called a solipsist twice in one day. :astonished:

I believe that there is an external reality which is separate from what I think and it’s in fact separate from my existence or anyone’s existence. And it turns out … that’s solipsism. :open_mouth:

I will acknowledge whatever you present if your arguments are sound.

Note the main point is the existential psychology and the ‘zombie parasite’ that compel theists to believe in a God.
You are very shallow here in the case of monotheists and their psychology. Christians and other theists used to believe [perhaps there are still some] who had believed God was like a giant bearded human being of superior power up there somewhere. Note the picture below;

The idea God exists is groundless except for psychological grounds and thus a theists or monotheists will always faced skepticisms from critical thinkers.
This is why the idea of God has been defined and re-defined towards the ultimate ontological god, i.e. an absolutely perfect God so to ensure, at least by reason, there is no greater God than one’s God. I have given detail arguments on this many times.

The ontological God is my syllogism is claimed by theists to have created the Universe [thus the Universe is referenced in my syllogism].
My syllogism is obviously constructed in my mind, if not where else, what is critical is I have presented my syllogism and open for all to critique.
I’ll welcome any sound counters to my argument.

Note my P2 implied God must be absolutely perfect. It is this same God that is an impossibility in my conclusion. You failed in logic on this one.

Note I have given many examples of how such ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ perfection are used by others in the same sense.

That is the point, you are ignorant when you accused others of being solipsistic, actually your views [of independent reality] are solipsistic as you have proven to yourself in the above.
[btw, I am not agreeable with the term ‘solipsistic’ in the typical sense, but in this case I am using solipsism in your sense against your own views.

This is you restating your position. It’s not a reply to my point or an argument against my point.

And you need not repeat the same statements which you have made dozens of times. I remember what you have said in the past.

You don’t use the fact that “God created the universe” in your syllogism. It plays no role in your argument either way (for or against). You could have stated that theists say that Jesus walked on water and water has been scientifically studied … therefore you referenced features of the universe. It would be just as irrelevant to your argument.

If you remember, then just let it pass. Such repetition could be helpful to other readers.

I am not sure of your point above.

Note my syllogism;

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.

I tried to make it as short and as simple as possible [KISS] which is the favored approach.
However I have added detailed explanations to each premises in the OP and in later posts.

To meet your expectation I could expand the above syllogism to;

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility.
P2. God [as defined and who created the Universe] imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C… Therefore God [as defined and who created the Universe] is an impossibility.

I think what is more critical is the definition of ‘what is God’ [I have done that] and that will cover God’s creation of the Universe.

You’re still irrational, still irrelevant, Prismatic. You first premise fails no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Repeating yourself the way you do is what Goebbels did and ultimately for the same reason – to promote hate and fear.

The second post, written by James S Saint, hit the nail on the head.

The usual babbling.
I understand theism can be a very psychological thing and any critiques against theism especially the one like mine which strikes at the heart of it can be very disturbing.

Do you have any sound argument against the premises?

That means that you don’t understand the role of evidence in arguments for the existence of God.

You simply inserted “who created the Universe” into the statements which indicates that you don’t get the purpose of such a phrase. In fact, it’s pointless as you use it.

Basically, you have no evidence either way so your syllogism does not reflect reality. It reflects your mental constructs.