The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

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!

I have written many times my objective is very transparent.
I am not a Buddhist but I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva’s vow to extend compassion and empathy and be a responsible citizen to humanity.

My objective is the critique of God starts with this theistic-related evils;

Besides the above there is a whole load of evils and violence committed by SOME theists who are evil prone.

The ultimate root cause of the above terrible evils and violence is due to a belief in an idea of God by SOME evil prone believers.

The ultimate root cause of a belief in God is merely psychological and God is illusory which is driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Since the ultimate root cause is psychological, it is possible for humanity to deal with this psychological problem and replace theism with fool proof methods to manage the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis. I understand such a proposal is very disturbing to the majority of moderate theists, but there is no other more efficient choice.

Once theism is replaced in the future, there will no more possible theistic related evils and violence.
No doubt there will still be secular evils which nevertheless must be continually addressed and resolved.

Compassion and empathy don’t really show in your posts. But that’s just my opinion.

Your premises are about what theists say about God. The premises are not actually about God. The premises are not about features of the world/universe.

Therefore your conclusion is not about what exists but rather it’s about what theists say exists.

And even that is debatable because I don’t think theists are saying what you claim that they are saying. Lots of posters here agree with me and they have told you so.

Obviously all words and statements are only thoughts which exist in the mind.

If your premises are not verified and justified as being real, then your conclusion cannot be real.

This is how it works in a syllogism :

P1 Stuff which has been witnessed.
P2 Other stuff which has been witnessed.
C Conclusion which logically follows from P1 and P2.

The conclusion need not be witnessed, verified, demonstrated empirically but it reflects reality. It may be verified in the future but that’s a separate process and it’s beside the point.