The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

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.

Note, the default to objective knowledge is as follows;

  1. Present a rational hypothesis from abduction, etc.
  2. Gather evidence, verify and justify hypothesis is true.
  3. If proven true, then hypothesis is accepted as a true objective knowledge {justified true beliefs].

Yes my premise 2 is about what theists claim, i.e. God is a possibility and real absolutely perfect Being. I have explained how despite claims of lesser Gods, all claims of God are ultimately directed towards an absolutely perfect Being.

My purpose is to show the theists claim cannot even qualify for stage 1 above, i.e. as a rational and probable hypothesis.
If the claim of God cannot even be a proper hypothesis, then there is no grounds to proceed to stage 2 to establish whether God is a possibility and is real.
Therefore the theists’ claim ‘God exists’ is moot, a non-starter, thus an impossibility.

I have stated this impossibility of God is like claim a square-circle exists, i.e.

  1. All contradictions are impossible [logically, empirically]
  2. A square-circle is a contradiction
  3. Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility

Note again, the above stages 1-3 to arrive at real objective knowledge.
The claim “God exists?” cannot even qualify to be a rational hypothesis.

I have presented the alternative theory of how the idea of God arose within the consciousness of humans in this OP, The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.
I have given SOME [more in mind] details and evidences to explain my claim the idea of God is psychological.
It is because the idea of God is grounded on the psychological that the belief in a God is generally accepted as based on faith [belief without proof nor refined reason].

“Objective knowledge” means “knowledge of the objective” and “of the objective” means “of the ONE, common Reality”.

Your first premise was false (and actually undefined). And, as phyllo told you before (as have others before), even proving that God could not be absolutely perfect does not disprove God’s existence, rather merely that God is not as absolutely perfect as they thought…

Your syllogism is logically invalid and would not disprove God even if it was valid.

Strawman.

Theists have not claimed that if God is not absolutely perfect, then God does not exist.

Your hypothesis is that if God exists, God must be absolutely perfect (your strawman). Your reasoning is that since absolute perfection is impossible, God is impossible.

Again, a Strawman.

“All contradictions are impossible” is not the same as “Absolute perfection is impossible”. The latter is an undefined phrase as well as being simply not true.

Your analogy is incorrect. Your premises have to be accepted as true, and your’s was not.

Yes, merely a “theory”. Hume never proved anything. But literally everything can be said to be “psychological” thus it is pointless to make the claim except to insult and demean.

You are inventing your own meaning of ‘objective.’

The following is what is generally accepted as objectivity in philosophy;

The above has no substance worth my time, and note this point;

Aminius and Phyllo had raised the above points but I have countered effectively their superficial arguments. Have you read the responses I had given and do you have any counters of substance to them?

I had provided evidences of how the idea of God arose in the brain and mind of some people.
For some they are cured of the idea of God oozing out of the brain by medicines, avoidance of drugs, brain damage is repaired, etc.

The basis of theism is psychological.
In the future humanity will have the knowledge and technology to understand fully the neuro-psychological mechanics and processes that drive theism with its good and evil elements. Then one will be able to switch off or inhibit the psychological impulses [re theism] via other non-theistic fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within.
At present non-theistic Buddhism and other spiritualities without any negative baggages are already doing that.

Gotta love strong metaphysical claims like this one above…anyway Kant:

What is the reference or link to the above?

Most of the above is a misrepresentation of Kant’s view.
The only provision for God in Kant’s philosophy is that or a reasoned-God within Morality as the pivot of the highest good. Kant never accept God as a real thing within empirical-rational reality.

I do not agree with Kant’s use of the term ‘God’ within his Philosophy of Morality.
The term ‘God’ can lead to many of its misinterpretations.
There is another term to God which Kant used, i.e. the Ens Realisimum.

What’s your beef? Ens Realisimum = “the most real being” = God

The ultimate ground of God is the self-aware experiences of biological evolution, which indicate teleology. One again–God is a verb, not a noun. God is a force, not a thingy.
"The force that though the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age… ."Dylan Thomas

Confirmation bias jumping in. This is one reason why theism is psychological.

The Ens Realisimum which is non-thestic is still an impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.

Ens Realisimum can be equivalent to the idea of God but is more of philosophical idea rather than a heavily theological based idea with its negative baggage.
It is necessary to bring in the idea of Ens Realisimum [not God] with discussing the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

If such is based on self-aware experience, it has to be empirically-based.
But as I had demonstrated the idea [non empirical] of God is not empirically possible, i.e. it is impossible within an empirical rational reality.

The idea of God is only a mental thought/idea within the mind only. Such an idea is driven by psychological factors within the brain/mind. I have given evidences for this.

If “it” it is a force is may not be a physical object, but nevertheless it is still a thing-in-general.
Kant has demonstrated a thing-in-itself [like the idea of god] do not exists in empirical rational reality except as a thought with the brain/mind of theists.

Kant was unaware of the discoveries of Darwin and Mendel. This makes much of his psychology abstract and impractical. If the brain/ mind were incapable of discovering something of reality in things outside the body, we would not survive. Brain/mind seeks nourishment in the complementation of chemical elements. We eat those chemicals and their compounds that are identical to those that compose our physical body. It was not though trial and error that we learned what not to eat; it was though the accuracy of our senses that we learned what was edible and nourishing. The “thing in itself:” is a fun bit of philosophical mysticism that has nothing to do with here and now, practical ideas. Without biology, there is no psychology; without biologically grounded psychology, there is no need for theism. This has little or nothing to do with theism as being caused by existential angst.