The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Neuroscience is in its infancy. Who is to say what it can or cannot discover?
The underpinnings of psychology are material reactions. It cannot be said that these reactions do not contribute to what is thought. You cannot limit mind/brain to logic about things currently considered empirical.
Between the late 1980s and the current decade I’ve read dozens of works on neuroscience and its effects on philosophy. I find few scientists who would admit that neuroscience is as limited as you tend to believe.
Psychology is not the ultimate ground of Being.

Note my point in an earlier post;

The principle is the question of God is an impossibility to fit within the ambit of Science, thus neuroscience or whatever faculty of Science.

Scientific knowledge is the most objective and credible source of knowledge within empirical-rational reality.
As stated above the question of God cannot be within the ambit of Science at all.
Now you tell me what other modes of reality can you prove the reality of God?

Theists will insist God is real is a possibility but cannot provide justifications for a starting basis to begin to justify God’s existence.

Yes, Psychology is not the ultimate ground of Being, but psychology provides the reason why theists must believe in a God [illusory] to soothe the inherent and unavoidable existential angst.

It is psychology and psychiatry that expose the basis of the experience of God is from the brain when triggered by various things, like mental illnesses, brain damage, drugs, meditations, etc.

There are non-theistic religions and spirituality that recognize this psychological existential basis and dealt with the same issue psychologically.

Ever been to a therapist, Prismatic? Ever ask what the root cause of your fear and loathing of God might come from? After all, all beliefs are ultimately grounded in psychology. Everything you believe “is nothing more than neuronal activities.”

Obviously all human activities are related to the psychological. Why should I fear and loathe something that is an illusion and impossible?

My basis and starting point to critique the existence of God arise from this;

plus all other evils from this religion and other theistic religions.

Those Muslims involved committed the above atrocities as a divine duty to please a God which they believe is real and had promised them eternal life.
This is crazy as I have proven the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility and believers are relying on such an illusion to kill non-believers.

I have also proven with evidences the basis of a belief in a God is psychological and thus as Buddhism has done should deal with the same existential issue psychologically.

Have you ever asked why you are so SNARKY when you feel your belief and psychological security is threatened uncomfortably?

That’s what I’m asking. Why do you promulgate hate and fear of something that, according to you, cannot exist? What’s the ultimate ground of your anti-theist beliefs? It sure as hell ain’t Buddhism.

Your views are too shallow here.

If a schizophrenic chop off your right hand because he believed his ‘real’ ‘God -XYZ’ [illusion] commanded him to do so, would you hate and fear his ''God"? Surely the attention should be focused on his psychological state.

For theists who commit evils and violence against non-believers in the believe their God is real and commanded them to carry out their divine duty, I don’t hate nor fear their illusory God. Rather I am directing attention their psychology in why they believed in an illusory God and from that delusion commit evils and violence on non-believers.

That you believed I hate and fear God is your delusional belief.

I have explained in the earlier post [you missed] why I critique theism and highlight the belief in God is due to a psychology that led to real evils and violence, and not that God exists as real to be believed.
I believe your psychological reactions are the same, i.e. being snarky to my valid and rational criticisms of God.

The ultimate ground of God is pre-psychological and can be found in the organic underpinnings of brain/mind. One does not pick the middle of a process, psychology in this case, and claim that it is the ultimate ground of anything. The ultimate ground of God is in Being and is experienced as belonging. The precedent for belonging is not found in an idea, it is found in an experience of being part of a universe that has learned to see itself.

This pre-psychological has a ground which can be derived only on basis of developmental, or inclusive argument. God exists in consciousness in the same brain that’s arguing. This ground is borne out by Anselm"s problem of self derivation

But the critique against it is scholastic, and does not concern with the idea of narrowing difference between things, ideas and energy.

In fact the man god anthropomorphic idea works in reverse if evolution is interpreted in terms of God in man consisting of a presumed God in man. If the objects of evolution have already been attained prior to its conscious realization, nihilizing time in its transcendental manifestation, then its object-God, has a quality of having intrinsic objectivity as its foundation.

A psychology has also a further foundation, meaning the logical distinction between theism and non-theism. Logical priority begs the pre-logical but not by way of an intrinsic logic.

So, once language is acquired the logical basis can be inferred. Hence the immediate problem with the Ultimate basis requiring embodiment of the ideal prior to the acquisition of language.

Can such an acquisition be shown as having necessary developmental manifestations of intrinsic necessity for God, exclusive of any logical argument?

I believe that the closure between ritual and language implies a historical shift away from ritual . The Reformation proves witness to the diminishing of Roman Catholic ritual as uncontestable,

My argument is;

  1. The idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
  2. The organic underpinnings of brain/mind are empirically based elements.
  3. Therefore, the idea of God cannot [it is impossible] be linked with the organic underpinnings of brain/mind

From the above your claim is not even logical to start with, thus fallacious and false.

My point is;

  1. Psychology is the ultimate ground of all human behaviors.
  2. Believing in a God is a human mental activity/behavior.
  3. Therefore ‘Believing in a God’ is ultimately psychological.

As such the real ground of why people believe in a God should be dealt psychologically, not because an illusory and impossible God said so as claimed.

Note the critical term above is ‘experience’ which is empirical.
The ‘empirical’ [experience] just don’t jive with God which is pure reason, illusory and an impossibility [apple versus orange].

In both syllogisms, the premise is questionable and cannot be realized as fact from what follows. Besides a syllogism is a week form of proof
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Ergo, Socrates is all men.

Hilarious. All beliefs are human mental activities.

Premise 1 is also very strange. Psychology is a field of study. But let’s say you mean something like ‘cognitive processes’. This premise is not going to be accepted by a large percentage of biology, who are physicalists, and are more likely to say that cognitive process are the result of physical processes.

Actually it is your response that is hilarious which lack intelligence and based on ignorance.

Note:

  1. Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought.
  2. All human activities is related to behavior and mind ncluding conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought.
  3. Thus All human activities is psychologically based.

“Cognitive process” ??
Note this overlap between the physical and the mental [psychology];

Show me again where I am wrong and is hilarious?

Which premise is questionable.
The P1 of the first argument is proven here,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
What are your counter arguments against that argument?
This and the first argument is NOT meant to be proven as fact but only confined to reason.

Note the theists intended argument for the existence of God is based on pure crude reason and not direct empirical proof.
Therefore accordingly I have use reason [same sense] at a higher level to disproof the crude argument of the theists that God exists.
This is higher reason killing lower reasoning.

The second paragraph is can be empirically proven.
I have already given evidences of how a belief in God is linked to psychological factors in this OP.

In addition, note the origin of a belief in God is psychological unease.
The idea of God provide the psychological ease and security.
This is why when that psychological ease and security is threatened by non-believers’ actions e.g. criticisms of theism, drawing of cartoons, etc. SOME highly sensitive theists will go to the extreme of killing those who critique the religion.

Snark is one good example who felt threatened by by critiques of theism, thus his shooting of intellectual arrows and barbs at me in an attempt to kill my intellectual pursuit of the issue.

I have never claimed syllogism [via reason and intellect] is a strong form of proof.

The above syllogism is fishy,
Deductively it should be;
3. Socrates is mortal.

Note P1 is psychological [Hume] and conditional upon the past and never a certainty because who knows in the future it is possible for humans to live forever…

The path to knowledge is;

  1. Firstly it is based and leveraged on prior empirical experiences,
  2. Then the intellect conceptualize the experience as a hypothesis, via syllogism or otherwise.
  3. Finally the hypothesis must be empirically proven to become knowledge.

The problem with ‘God exists’ as I have demonstrated cannot even pass stage 1 to form a hypothesis in 2.
At stage 1 I have killed it with reason, God is illusory and an impossibility.

Whatever you arrogantly claim you have killed still survives in the minds of thoughtful people. God in the mind does not prove God does not exist outside the mind as attested by numerous people in all parts of the globe. Your Hume/Kant attacks on the efficacy of the senses do not stand up beside actual experience. Logic can prove or disprove anything, including itself. Wasn’t It Wittsgenstein (SP) who proved that mathematical logic cannot fathom ontology. Mathematical logic is hermetically sealed in its own way of seeing. It is not meant to be an analyzer of experiences in Being. It can substantiate reason, but fails to describe emotion.

As I had provided with evidence, ‘God in the mind’ is also attested VERY strongly and sincerely by people who suffered mental illnesses, brain damage, drug addicts, hallucinogen, meditations, electrical stimulation of the brain, during orgasm, etc.

Based on the above, it is highly possible the so-called prophets, messengers, mesiah, godmen, and the likes could be a candidate [patient, victim] of the above reasons.

At least I have evidences of how the experiences of God lead to the false claim God exists. Note when the patients are cured they don’t have the experiences of a God anymore.

Whatever exists in the mind is at best a hypothesis or speculation. The ultimate is such things in the mind must be proven with reasonable justifications. The most credible is the empirical-rational test, e.g. Science. What other basis can one verify the existence of a thing beside the most credible Science? Faith?

Note my counter against the reliability of actual experience of a real ‘God’ as listed above. Whatever the experience it must be justified solidly.

logic do not disprove itself. Logic will disprove bad thinking logically.

Wittgenstein view re mathematics versus ontology, not sure, link?
It is depend on the context related to the term ontology.
Ontology is general discussed in relation to an independent thing or being e.g. God. Such a basis of ontology as I have demonstrated is an illusion and an impossibility. The bottom line is where is the evidence and justifications of its existence as real?

Yes, mathematics and any other fields of knowledge must be qualified within its limited Framework and System. To translate any mathematics proof, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2 is real it has to be reflected within an empirical-rational reality. If not what other mode is possible?

OMG :laughing:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t feel threatened by your intellectual dishonesty.

:-"

Not that you are very conscious of it.
Your snarky remarks and impulsive one-liner attacks are the effects of a subliminal [subconscious] perceived threat you are not consciously aware of.

When someone says to a rich person that they are obnoxious and the rich person says to that person that he or she is just jealous, does that make it so? You might fool skeptics who’ve already made up their mind, but your pseudo-psychology is not an argument for or against God.

Some theists use deductive approaches. Some do not. Some expect their deductive approaches to convince others. Some have their own empirical reasons for believing.

A lot of skeptics make the assumption that if you cannot prove something to be true, it is false.

That is false.

There have always been truths that were not possible to prove - or give the kinds of evidence required in science.

Claims that someone has proved there is no God are generally criticisms of deductive arguments for existence of God, some good critiques, some not. I don’t think any of the deductive proofs of God happen to work. It is however disingenous to then claim that God does not exist if the deductions do not hold up. In fact it’s not scientific.

One can remain unconvinced and on good grounds. This is confused by people like prismatic for proof. And then comes the tooting one’s horn.

Deductive reasoning is merely an effective “chute” but it is vulnerable to GIGO [garbage in garbage out] or SISO [shit in shit out] or other defects.
Now all deductive syllogism must always start with the major premise then the minor and finally the conclusion.
The rational is the idea of God cannot even qualify as a major premise to start with.
The most plausible explanation as supported with evidence is the idea of God is merely psychologically driven by deep primal impulses.

If theists rely on empirical reasons then they must prove it on an empirical-rational basis, i.e. support it with justifiable empirical evidences.

What skeptics claim is false is when theists cannot prove something to be true, they insist they are personally convinced it is true. This is basically faith which is false in relation to truth based on proofs.

That is an oxymoron.
If is a possible truth, then it must be possible to prove whilst awaiting the evidence to prove it.
When it is an impossible to be true, then it is not possible [impossible] to prove.
The idea of God as I had demonstrated is impossible to be true thus it is impossible to be proven.
I have also shown the idea of God is due to psychological reasons.

I have not proven deductively ‘there is no God’.
What I have done is to demonstrate the idea of God is an impossibility to be real to start with. As such there is no need to even prove whether God exists or not.

Whatever is not proven must be shown to be possible to be proven when the possible evidences are produced.
Regardless of any tooting one’s horn, the fundamental is ‘where is the proof’ or if possible, provide the argument why it is possible?