Yes, the empirical evidence need not be a single object.
The empirical can be related to system, i.e. empirical systems.
Example, the river systems, the human systems, whatever-system that is empirical.
The empirical can also be something like energy which is a common denominator throughout the empirical world.
Even if scientists were to discover the so-called God-particle, it is basically empirical, thus a limited thing, i.e. limited to the Scientific Framework.
It is not “between man and the wisdom” but man using his wisdom.
There is nothing else to gain from reality other than what is empirical [philosophical].
Those who think more than what-is-empirical are driven by the psychological impulses.
So you’re saying men of the past who had less information and scientific data to go off of and did not have Jung or brilliant psychologists as such, have a superior concept of god?
If it was superior it wouldn’t have been defeated or be so easily criticized. So basically, with that logic, we should go back to the past ideas since they’re all superior than what we have now, that doesn’t make logical sense Pris. That isn’t the ultimate god because it isn’t real, the ultimate god is what is real and functioning with and in reality as well as part of the human being psychologically and collectively.
I did not say men of the past have a superior concept of God.
The idea of God has evolved from 50,000 years to the modern concept of God [1600] to the present.
What is real is real which can be verified empirically and philosophically.
If you refer to an ‘ultimate god’ or anything as real, then, it must be able to be verified empirically and philosophically.
Instead of using ‘ultimate god’ which can easily be confused with the theists’ god, why don’t you use the term ‘ultimate-X.’
Then you describe what attributes and qualities your ‘ultimate-X’ comprised of, then set about to prove it is real.
Observe humanity as a collective, logically deduce if we were on the same page philosophically, everyone at the truths which show through consistency. Observe our journey toward wisdom and how it always has been since consciousness first dawned. They painted wisdom and the will seeking such as the god, they merely gave that idea form by externalizing it onto the idea of an entity. Makes it easier to observe but then people get lost in it and forget the context and original idea of what it truly is.
Note ‘wisdom’ is merely ‘applied knowledge’ that optimize wisely.
Wisdom comes from man, nothing special about it.
We know humans are conscious beings but we do not know its detailed mechanics yet.
Human consciousness is relatively insignificant in comparison to the subconscious minds which humans do not have complete knowledge yet.
Note, you are merely playing with a lot of words in a vague manner and tries for form some sort of conclusion which is vague.
You need to be more precise here.
The best is to argue your point logically with a syllogism or a sequential list of premises that flows.
I understand there is a debate going on about realists vs anti realists.
The proof is in our existence, we are now and once weren’t before, yet the functioning of everything regardless of us, lead to us here now, through steps of consciousness… rooted from the unconscious into the subconscious then into consciousness.
Our existence is the established fact.
Thus we need to start from our conscious existence and works towards the unknown.
Thus the sequence has to be;
-from the conscious [proven fact] to the unconscious [not certain] into the subconscious [more uncertain] then back into consciousness.
The point is we have to start from the conscious existence [which is limited] and thus whatever conclusion you infer therefrom is limited.
I presume you are trying to describe something, i.e. ultimate-X which is not the God of the theists.
In this case you have to present what is ‘ultimate-X’ then show proofs and argument that it exists as real.
Note, first define what is real.
The list the attributes and qualities of your “ultimate-X.”
I predict you will end up with your “ultimate-X” as something empirical which is limited.
If your “ultimate-X” is non-empirical, then it will definitely be the same as theists’ God albeit you approach it differently.
Note, this OP is applicable to what the theists defined as their God in here;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
This OP is critical for me, because from the definition of God which theists insist is real, theists are influenced by such a ‘real’ God to war against and kill non-believers. On this basis believers had killed over 270 million non-believers merely because they disbelieved their God.
Therefore if God is proven to be impossible to be real then, there is no real God, i.e. no grounds for theists to obey a God to kill non-believers.