The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

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.

Why bother with someone who clearly has psychological issues; someone who, by their own admission, rejects their own natural inclinations?

At some point it becomes an exploration of his psychology. Why does he hang on so tightly to some ideas? Is there anything that can make him shift his position in more than a trivial way?

I have been a little curious as to whether his problem stems more from culture or genetics. Perhaps both since they are hardly independent.

Maybe he was molested and blames God.

I would suspect an Islamic Priest. :-k
:smiley:

Actually I don’t get the point you are making.
I think you must be viewing it from another perspective.
I don’t see any problem with my original P2.

There appears to be some confusion somewhere on your part.
Note all syllogisms in principles are mental constructs, i.e. logic and reason.

If the conclusion is to reflect reality [which is not my case] then the conclusion have to be verified and justified to prove it is real. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity like all syllogism is a mental construct and his conclusion was proven to be real with actual evidences.

The conclusion of my syllogism is to prove God do not exists in reality.
The idea of God is illusory, moot, a non-starter and an impossibility.
So there is no reason for my syllogism to reflect ‘reality’.

It is like we know a square-circle is an impossibility, so there is no question of relating such a thought with reality. God is an impossibility, so there is no question of God being associated with reality.

What is really real is that the idea of God arose out of psychological factors.
I have already provided evidences [research and elsewhere] where the idea of God arose from brain damage, mental illnesses, drugs, hallucinogens, chemical, brain stimulations, and others.

Note I have provided evidences for further deliberations but theists for thousands of years have not provided any sound evidence God exists as real!