GOD EXISTS!

[Meno_]

Here is an analytical proof for God's existence. You be the judge

Existence as an understood concept began with Man. Before Man, animals of very early types did perceive but, could not conceive 'things' or 'thingness' Man, was able to conceive of 'existence', of things. Thought of things became the thought of an existing existence , which became known as the thing-in-it's-self. The thing in it's self became the Self, the transcendental self.

That without this transcendental self there can be no god is tantamount with the mere animal function of imminent awareness of things.

The development to higher awareness is the feature of evolution which asks the question: whether god is imminent all around? , or is god developmental towards a closure into a Man-God? Is this closure tantamount when this final distinction can be overcome?

The superman concept of coming to be analogous with the idea of the ring intension , to overcome differences between mythical intuitive type, with the actual anthropomorphic development of a future coming Man God-has always been the modus operans of dealing with this ultimate question


This may have beenbehind the idea of the Superman , closing the circle and defining the Ring. Ultimately, the ideas of God may actualize into the God of ideas, and on cosmologocally based scales possible probabilities, eventually must attain a closure, a certainty.

Without it the man-god could not ever come to be, andwith it the existence of this ring of certainty that keeps men guessing.. it is never actually revealed , because it is the foundation of every thing that becomes a possibility toward the progressive evolution of higher awareness.

Foundations can never be perceived because perceived things always decay and die. That there be things which are eternal and no of no death, is certain, because without that certainty. that positivity, of which , man could not have evolved in the first place is built on a prior necessity.

The Man-God, the Son of Man needed to prove this , in order to demonstrate God's Love for Man. This demonstration of sacrifice proved God's Eternal Existence, because God knew that immortality not mortality was the key to existence

Merry Christmas on this renewed celebration of the birth of.our Lord, Jesus Christ.

[Prismatic567]

Here is an analytical proof for God's existence. You be the judge

Existence as an understood concept began with Man. Before Man, animals of very early types did perceive but, could not conceive 'things' or 'thingness' Man, was able to conceive of 'existence', of things. Thought of things became the thought of an existing existence , which became known as the thing-in-it's-self. The thing in it's self became the Self, the transcendental self.

Yes, humans are different from all others. Things and existence of things is no issue is the basis is empirical-rational where things can be verified, rationalized and justified with empirical evidences.

There is no issue with an empirical-self [physical or transcendental], i.e. the self that is based on evidence, then rationalized, verified and justified.

But when the transcendental 'self' is claimed to be a transcendental "Self," that is a problem especially when speculated as a Soul that survives physical death. Like the idea of God, the idea of a transcendental Self that survives physical death is an impossibility.
Note counters against such a transcendental 'Self' from Buddhism, Hume, Kant, Parfit and others.

That without this transcendental self there can be no god is tantamount with the mere animal function of imminent awareness of things.

I take it you meant "transcendental Self." This is your major premise and it is faulty thus this later minor premise is also faulty. Also your introduce God here without proofs but note God is an impossibility.
Humans do not need a God to differentiate from non-humans. The difference is so easy to prove based on empirical evidences of human thoughts and behaviors.

The development to higher awareness is the feature of evolution which asks the question: whether god is imminent all around? , or is god developmental towards a closure into a Man-God? Is this closure tantamount when this final distinction can be overcome?

God is an impossibility [as proven] thus this premise is moot.

The superman concept of coming to be analogous with the idea of the ring intension , to overcome differences between mythical intuitive type, with the actual anthropomorphic development of a future coming Man God-has always been the modus operans of dealing with this ultimate question

God is an impossibility [as proven] therefore there is no such thing as 'a future coming Man God.' This need to belief in a God and Man-God is driven by psychological desperation to deal with an existential crisis.

Since the above premises are faulty, all the other premises below will not follow, cannot be deductive.

This may have beenbehind the idea of the Superman , closing the circle and defining the Ring. Ultimately, the ideas of God may actualize into the God of ideas, and on cosmologocally based scales possible probabilities, eventually must attain a closure, a certainty.

Without it the man-god could not ever come to be, andwith it the existence of this ring of certainty that keeps men guessing.. it is never actually revealed , because it is the foundation of every thing that becomes a possibility toward the progressive evolution of higher awareness.

Foundations can never be perceived because perceived things always decay and die. That there be things which are eternal and no of no death, is certain, because without that certainty. that positivity, of which , man could not have evolved in the first place is built on a prior necessity.

The Man-God, the Son of Man needed to prove this , in order to demonstrate God's Love for Man. This demonstration of sacrifice proved God's Eternal Existence, because God knew that immortality not mortality was the key to existence

Merry Christmas on this renewed celebration of the birth of.our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Merry Christmas [not theistic].

[Meno_]

Here is an analytical proof for God's existence. You be the judge

Existence as an understood concept began with Man. Before Man, animals of very early types did perceive but, could not conceive 'things' or 'thingness' Man, was able to conceive of 'existence', of things. Thought of things became the thought of an existing existence , which became known as the thing-in-it's-self. The thing in it's self became the Self, the transcendental self.

Yes, humans are different from all others. Things and existence of things is no issue is the basis is empirical-rational where things can be verified, rationalized and justified with empirical evidences.

There is no issue with an empirical-self [physical or transcendental], i.e. the self that is based on evidence, then rationalized, verified and justified.

But when the transcendental 'self' is claimed to be a transcendental "Self," that is a problem especially when speculated as a Soul that survives physical death. Like the idea of God, the idea of a transcendental Self that survives physical death is an impossibility.
Note counters against such a transcendental 'Self' from Buddhism, Hume, Kant, Parfit and others.

That without this transcendental self there can be no god is tantamount with the mere animal function of imminent awareness of things.

I take it you meant "transcendental Self." This is your major premise and it is faulty thus this later minor premise is also faulty. Also your introduce God here without proofs but note God is an impossibility.
Humans do not need a God to differentiate from non-humans. The difference is so easy to prove based on empirical evidences of human thoughts and behaviors.

The development to higher awareness is the feature of evolution which asks the question: whether god is imminent all around? , or is god developmental towards a closure into a Man-God? Is this closure tantamount when this final distinction can be overcome?

God is an impossibility [as proven] thus this premise is moot.

The superman concept of coming to be analogous with the idea of the ring intension , to overcome differences between mythical intuitive type, with the actual anthropomorphic development of a future coming Man God-has always been the modus operans of dealing with this ultimate question

God is an impossibility [as proven] therefore there is no such thing as 'a future coming Man God.' This need to belief in a God and Man-God is driven by psychological desperation to deal with an existential crisis.

Since the above premises are faulty, all the other premises below will not follow, cannot be deductive.

This may have beenbehind the idea of the Superman , closing the circle and defining the Ring. Ultimately, the ideas of God may actualize into the God of ideas, and on cosmologocally based scales possible probabilities, eventually must attain a closure, a certainty.

Without it the man-god could not ever come to be, andwith it the existence of this ring of certainty that keeps men guessing.. it is never actually revealed , because it is the foundation of every thing that becomes a possibility toward the progressive evolution of higher awareness.

Foundations can never be perceived because perceived things always decay and die. That there be things which are eternal and no of no death, is certain, because without that certainty. that positivity, of which , man could not have evolved in the first place is built on a prior necessity.

The Man-God, the Son of Man needed to prove this , in order to demonstrate God's Love for Man. This demonstration of sacrifice proved God's Eternal Existence, because God knew that immortality not mortality was the key to existence

Merry Christmas on this renewed celebration of the birth of.our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Merry Christmas [not theistic].

[Meno_]

We can argue about this after the Holiday and if I may preface this by asking You to think about what a God means to You. My concept of a God is really different but not divorced from any particular denomination of organised religion. I was really surprised by my capacity to return to Theism , having been absent for a very long time. It was and still is like a draw of some tremendous power , not at all self prescribed .

But maybe another thing, the difference between a Theist and an Atheist may also be an exxagerated hyporbola and not sit well , but its worth some consideration.

[Prismatic567]

We can argue about this after the Holiday and if I may preface this by asking You to think about what a God means to You. My concept of a God is really different but not divorced from any particular denomination of organised religion. I was really surprised by my capacity to return to Theism , having been absent for a very long time. It was and still is like a draw of some tremendous power , not at all self prescribed .

But maybe another thing, the difference between a Theist and an Atheist may also be an exxagerated hyporbola and not sit well , but its worth some consideration.

Sometimes a reversion could be due to this [posted in another thread];

Another point is there is no guarantee and permanence in the critical thinking approach to divert from theism. Because the existential crisis is inherent and unavoidable, the neurons that inhibit one from theism can give way when they atrophize as one gets to the later stages of life.
Note the very world famous and notable atheist, Anthony Flew shocked and surprised all this followers when he turned to God, i.e. as deist. Note this research.

Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

Btw, I have nothing against your personal theistic preference at the present and I understand and do not object if you are into theism now.
My critique is on theism-in-general and for the future.

[Meno_]

Got a little reprise from the hustle and bustle of the Xmas season.

Yes neurologyb and disposition have a lot to it . A friend of mine told of a friend who professes to be an atheist, yet he believes in Xmas. But the irony of an inescapable contradiction immediately strikes one here. The word Christmas derives from Christ, so geneologically what's evident is zero attempt to connect dots here.

The futility of the obsessive nature of gift giving goes against everything that the religious notion of it represents.

What I mean by God and His Son are totally derivative of how original ideas acquire metaphoric perspectives and that evolution is just as important and coincidental to the very consciousness that's inherent in the concept. Even the genealogy of non Cristian myths have relevance and meaning , so why deny a connection between them?

In that sense, or in another sense, contradiction can be viewed as two sides of the same coin. Theism conceptually reverses to its opposite and significantly it produces its negation. The Theism is a prior manifestation, and atheism depends on this priority. Without one the other is immaterial.

With the ontological confusion done with, the question, Prismatic can be dealt with then, through the level of meaning through similar notions emerging as to what the word god means. That it does mean different things to different people, relies on the modern commonsense notion of a positive twist to denial of connections with original intent of meaning.

To me , god could mean a source of information with an inclusion of absolute memory, whereas, its opposite could entail no central repository, or even a diffusion and total mobilization of all memory. But could these two versions again, reflect the notion of a higher plane where diffusion and total infusion can be inferred as a unity?

I think the probability is minimum 50%, and even a slight difference in absolute terms , on a matrix of near infinite probability, as sms as .00000000000000000000000000000001 and beyond, could make a absolute difference become certainty.

The point that there need to be such a totality is immeasurably greater then not.

That such forces on the immeasurable scale, are just as compelling, defy absolute understanding.

[Meno_]

In formation has 2 ways of interpreting energy transfer. The absolute result of information collapse is an infinitely small bit of energy, a total negation of everything, without the possibility of reversal. It becomes=is=the eternal.

[Fixed Cross]

Here is an analytical proof for God's existence. You be the judge

Existence as an understood concept began with Man. Before Man, animals of very early types did perceive but, could not conceive 'things' or 'thingness' Man, was able to conceive of 'existence', of things. Thought of things became the thought of an existing existence , which became known as the thing-in-it's-self. The thing in it's self became the Self, the transcendental self.

That without this transcendental self there can be no god is tantamount with the mere animal function of imminent awareness of things.

Have you asked the Wolf, if he concurs?
I disagree in any case.
I think man will slowly rise to the awareness of Wolf and Raven. Before that he is merely worm. He is not aware of anything at all and his "God" is this un-awareness.

When man begins to understand animals as above and beyond him, he begins to awaken, to become aware of the most basic things.
In his current state, man barely reaches entity, and in most cases, is not entity at all.
Mankind is largely goo.

The development to higher awareness is the feature of evolution which asks the question: whether god is imminent all around? , or is god developmental towards a closure into a Man-God? Is this closure tantamount when this final distinction can be overcome?

Higher awareness first requires awareness.

The superman concept of coming to be analogous with the idea of the ring intension , to overcome differences between mythical intuitive type, with the actual anthropomorphic development of a future coming Man God-has always been the modus operans of dealing with this ultimate question

The Superman is the concept of man attaining the beginnings of an animal state.
To be a Superman is to not be a coward before ones existence.

This may have beenbehind the idea of the Superman , closing the circle and defining the Ring. Ultimately, the ideas of God may actualize into the God of ideas, and on cosmologocally based scales possible probabilities, eventually must attain a closure, a certainty.

The absolute opposite: Strength is marked by the capacity to endure uncertainty.
Any Zen-meister will tell you that!

Without it the man-god could not ever come to be, andwith it the existence of this ring of certainty that keeps men guessing.. it is never actually revealed , because it is the foundation of every thing that becomes a possibility toward the progressive evolution of higher awareness.

Foundations can never be perceived because perceived things always decay and die.

Only when they are perceived by a wretch, a parasite, a worm.
When Zarathustra perceives the Sun, the Sun does not die.
And so there are many cases of perceiving without killing - in the wholesome, perception is a form of nurture.

That there be things which are eternal and no of no death, is certain, because without that certainty. that positivity, of which , man could not have evolved in the first place is built on a prior necessity.

Hmmm....
interesting logic.
At least, very creative.
I will interpret it as somewhat virtuous on that account.

The Man-God, the Son of Man needed to prove this , in order to demonstrate God's Love for Man. This demonstration of sacrifice proved God's Eternal Existence, because God knew that immortality not mortality was the key to existence

Merry Christmas on this renewed celebration of the birth of.our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Or as we say, the return of the Light.
The Sun stations at 21 December, stays stationed for three days (the slumber of the light of the world) and then the days begin to get longer. I.e. the light is "reborn".

Ever wondered why Christmas falls around the solstice?

[Dan~]

My friend Ethan talks about god-state as emergent.
We basically get infinite time to evolve and upgrade.
We evolve so much that we become the pantheosis.
I can't quote him perfectly, but i wondered to myself how much you would agree with such an idea.

[Meno_]

Here is an analytical proof for God's existence. You be the judge

Existence as an understood concept began with Man. Before Man, animals of very early types did perceive but, could not conceive 'things' or 'thingness' Man, was able to conceive of 'existence', of things. Thought of things became the thought of an existing existence , which became known as the thing-in-it's-self. The thing in it's self became the Self, the transcendental self.

That without this transcendental self there can be no god is tantamount with the mere animal function of imminent awareness of things.

Have you asked the Wolf, if he concurs?
I disagree in any case.
I think man will slowly rise to the awareness of Wolf and Raven. Before that he is merely worm. He is not aware of anything at all and his "God" is this un-awareness.

When man begins to understand animals as above and beyond him, he begins to awaken, to become aware of the most basic things.
In his current state, man barely reaches entity, and in most cases, is not entity at all.
Mankind is largely goo.

The development to higher awareness is the feature of evolution which asks the question: whether god is imminent all around? , or is god developmental towards a closure into a Man-God? Is this closure tantamount when this final distinction can be overcome?

Higher awareness first requires awareness.

The superman concept of coming to be analogous with the idea of the ring intension , to overcome differences between mythical intuitive type, with the actual anthropomorphic development of a future coming Man God-has always been the modus operans of dealing with this ultimate question

The Superman is the concept of man attaining the beginnings of an animal state.
To be a Superman is to not be a coward before ones existence.

This may have beenbehind the idea of the Superman , closing the circle and defining the Ring. Ultimately, the ideas of God may actualize into the God of ideas, and on cosmologocally based scales possible probabilities, eventually must attain a closure, a certainty.

The absolute opposite: Strength is marked by the capacity to endure uncertainty.
Any Zen-meister will tell you that!

Without it the man-god could not ever come to be, andwith it the existence of this ring of certainty that keeps men guessing.. it is never actually revealed , because it is the foundation of every thing that becomes a possibility toward the progressive evolution of higher awareness.

Foundations can never be perceived because perceived things always decay and die.

Only when they are perceived by a wretch, a parasite, a worm.
When Zarathustra perceives the Sun, the Sun does not die.
And so there are many cases of perceiving without killing - in the wholesome, perception is a form of nurture.

That there be things which are eternal and no of no death, is certain, because without that certainty. that positivity, of which , man could not have evolved in the first place is built on a prior necessity.

Hmmm....
interesting logic.
At least, very creative.
I will interpret it as somewhat virtuous on that account.

The Man-God, the Son of Man needed to prove this , in order to demonstrate God's Love for Man. This demonstration of sacrifice proved God's Eternal Existence, because God knew that immortality not mortality was the key to existence

Merry Christmas on this renewed celebration of the birth of.our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Or as we say, the return of the Light.
The Sun stations at 21 December, stays stationed for three days (the slumber of the light of the world) and then the days begin to get longer. I.e. the light is "reborn".

Ever wondered why Christmas falls around the solstice?

Onset of winter, where the sun shine for a least amount of time, where more darkness prevails, coincides with the birth of the light, where hope eternal is borne out of the darkness. The sun has been worshipped by many a religion, the Egyptians, the Mayans, Mexicans, eleven Greco-Romans, that the connection is not merely coincidental

Darkness does not prevail, its only an absence of light, without light, darkness could not be apprehended. This priority is essential to its understanding.

If God can be apprehended through light, He becomes of the light.


2 Corinthians 4:6. For God who said, " let light shine through the darkness"

John 1:4 "In him was life and that light of all mankind"

[Fixed Cross]

My friend Ethan talks about god-state as emergent.
We basically get infinite time to evolve and upgrade.

Yes, this also logically follows from the self-valuing logic of being.
There is no final end, "God" is a conjecture that we can actually surpass. But God thus represents a direction, and thus indeed, as we approach it, we are emergent.
And as I see it, we do not really exist as beings unless we are in this emergent state.

We evolve so much that we become the pantheosis.

I can corroborate.
We become entirely united with the more happy life forms, such as the trees and the forest animals, and with other happy humans.

But this world of systemic humans doesn't tolerate this happiness yet.

[Meno_]

My friend Ethan talks about god-state as emergent.
We basically get infinite time to evolve and upgrade.
We evolve so much that we become the pantheosis.
I can't quote him perfectly, but i wondered to myself how much you would agree with such an idea.

The concept of god can be interpreted in the actual light or what follows, the light of reason. They are contemporaneous and construct upon the idea of evolutionary progression.

There are three supporting ideas here. That where ever there are perceivable things, natural tendency is for self perception-awareness. Whatever nature is, whether it be a bundle of energy or solid things, or the actuality of a human self, it wants to perceive and know itself.

Cosmological Self Knowledge is a panteistic totality of infinite sets, and that's the puzzle, that drove Kantor crazy. But such contradictory nature of the world soul, is not inconceivable to the poets. The are not bound by quantification of thought.

The third idea, more in line with modern thought, is based on the feeling of temporality, more akin to time as a flow, a duration, a relative acquisition of perceptive knowledge of time. Esse eat percipii. The idea supports the argument that it is more likely that particles, human ideas among them, are centalkt stored6, and they have always been that way, since overcoming the limited understanding of a bound space\time.
Human understanding, of what goes on, once reaching this sense of awareness. reaches the sartori of illumination of the infinite beyond, which really is not beyond, but here, right now in eternity.

This cannot be understood in the traditional sense. it can not even be argued it is so SELF evident.

This is in support of Pantheosis more from a kind of developed mystical type awareness.

[Meno_]

My friend Ethan talks about god-state as emergent.
We basically get infinite time to evolve and upgrade.

Yes, this also logically follows from the self-valuing logic of being.
There is no final end, "God" is a conjecture that we can actually surpass. But God thus represents a direction, and thus indeed, as we approach it, we are emergent.
And as I see it, we do not really exist as beings unless we are in this emergent state.

We evolve so much that we become the pantheosis.

I can corroborate.
We become entirely united with the more happy life forms, such as the trees and the forest animals, and with other happy humans.

But this world of systemic humans doesn't tolerate this happiness yet.

Some are beginning to scratch the surface of such enjoyment.of this reconstruction

As most reconstructions go, if the emphasis is to the foundation and the structure, then if the concern is merely the cosmetic effect, then the enjoyment will be short lived, and the
foundaments will be left unaffected.
But the foundation built with a different earlier logic, will be dismissed as archaic and primitive.
But totem worship had its function without which their primary understanding depended on such worship,

The enemies they made in terms of the religious motives, overcame by actual images of cohesion in terms of survival images tied to images of survival.

[Meno_]

Unifying images and images of unification are analogous to the difference that occurs between sense and non-sense of fasticity between Being and Existence, nothingness and imminence.

The image and the imagination are in transcendental relation, the fasticity of which are but in a relatively factual relation.

If, God's existence is such a transcendental relative relationship with Being, and if god is simply the outcome of the power of the imagination, then what is wrong in expressing that imagination as the transcendental image's common sense power to will it(the power to express that will to power)?

The rudimentary Nitzchean idea , then, shows the underlying sense of inverse proportionality between common sense and the reversibility of its fasticity.

So does with the concept : Being and Nothingness. The concept of nothing becomes reversible with being. as a transcendental entity. This transcendental, hidden in a fasticity, hiding its embededness in the most primitive underlying logic.

Why is it that only to primitive women does the Sacred appear to? Because only those and to mystics of questionable mental stability can the whole factual basis of belief be suspended.

Belief is a suspension in phenomenologically reduced fasticity. where the archaic-logical image can withstand it, and hold it at bay.

I've been accused of trying to shelve out historically pre-defined conceptual networks using historicity, even before unearthing hidden conceptual meaning per particular philosopher, bit in an age of post modern redoubt, is not such an attempt to overcome the sense of the imminent death of history? That is perhaps why I have no problem with reading backwards, starting with the more recent.

Maybe some ways akin to Korean writing right to left.

[Meno_]

A very simplistic explanation for god remains .

Evolutionary thought supports the notion that logic itself is an intrinsic tool within the evolutionary domain. If so then it points a logico-linguistic unity whereby the very language of consciousness has teleological and semantic logical features.

Is there things , ideas, and presences in the world of the universe which are beyond recognition, knowledge and perception-seeing? If it is admitted that there are , are we heading to more and more knowledge of the unseen?

And are human beings to the best of our knowledge , at the present time, the most advanced beings in the known universe to acknowledge our self as having such knowledge?

And isn't the universe really blind to see Itself other then through Man , at the present time? Isn't this process of evolution , to see , really the very process through which the universe can experience Itself , if there is some central repository of knowledge?

If so then the idea that there something still unseen, has to be another feature of this process.

That is only logical conclusion

The seen is that which man has become most adept to interpret and slowly comes to realize that what he is seeing is really energy, made up of quanta of power. This energy is a something made up of the power which organizes itself and describes itself through particularization of a universal, which need not be conceived as having a specific repository in space and time..

This place if it can be called is located primarily on a geometric idea called the soul or Atman. It is placed logically outside the phenomenological or spatial understanding of man, therefore a circular location develops exclusive of other centers of knowing. These become other beings including men, all separate by each unit of understanding within their unique orbit of perception.

Two great spheres develop comprising one of phenomenological and absolute awareness, cut off from the one through which no knowledge has been yet acquired, but really certain that IT must exist, because no rational or sane person ever would profess to know everything or become aware of it.

Limitations like the speed of light prohibit man to ever individually visit the far reaches of the universe, or reach a total understanding whereby they can self create themselves.

However, by the simple act of de-limiting the difference between the known and the unknown, the whole picture changes, and a process of integration or re-integration take place, where the logical structure would reveal interrelatedness rather then separation.

Absolutely if this process were to develop into IT"s conclusion, the difference between man and God would reduce to an involvement of basic embededness in each other, so minimally it could be understood that man is part of god.

God also is part in man, and they conjointly embrace each other in a project of Self realization, of mutual awareness.

Man is still in an early stage of finding out that man's soul is a manifestation of god, and anthropomorphic representations of man as the son of man, are merely higher intended architectural tools, by which later understanding has set itself an early foundation.

The difference lies in lack of referentiality, and the reason for the nihilization is basic fear of self understanding.. How can It possibly otherwise?

[Prismatic567]

A very simplistic explanation for god remains .

Evolutionary thought supports the notion that logic itself is an intrinsic tool within the evolutionary domain. If so then it points a logico-linguistic unity whereby the very language of consciousness has teleological and semantic logical features.

Whatever the outcome of these logico-linguistic set up, the final conclusion must be empirical-rationally verifiable and justifiable.

Is there things , ideas, and presences in the world of the universe which are beyond recognition, knowledge and perception-seeing? If it is admitted that there are , are we heading to more and more knowledge of the unseen?
..

True there are the unseen and the unknown.
But we have to take into account the following;

1. the unseen or unknown that is empirical-rationally possible
2. the unseen or unknown that is impossible within an empirical-rational reality.

It is empirical-rationally possible that unseen bacteria and certain species of living things related to what is known exist somewhere on Earth.
It is empirical-rationally possible that human-liked aliens exist somewhere in the Universe.
It is empirical-rationally possible that a tea-pot is orbiting a planet somewhere in the Universe.
The first one is very likely while the other two are very very unlikely but nevertheless possible because they are all empirically possible elements.

While the above are empirically possible, the idea of a God is by reason impossible within an empirical-rational reality, as demonstrated here;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474


Therefore before you proceed with your proof above you must take into account and consider the following;

1. the unseen or unknown that is empirical-rationally possible
2. the unseen or unknown that is impossible within an empirical-rational reality.

[Meno_]

What if I were to tell you that the difference is basically narrowing .As artificial intelligence overtakes man's capacities, it will dawn on many who hold contradiction and antithesis dear to their hearts, that in order to avoid having to beat them, they may be better off joining them.

Then the previous ego filled skeptic, basking in the glory of contradiction and duality, will finally be displaced, his long overdue position in the center, relinquished to the super and supra consciousness .

Man held a stable mythology for thousands of years, and it can not be discounted as simply as a magic wand would try to do, the differences always proclaimed as epistomologically sound, yet the gaps do remaining in a nihilistic suspense, and as suspense generally behaving in a manner of a widening gap, which if not narrowed, will expand. where the bracketing of experience, will merely stay put on a treadmill .It may be mythologically unfruitful to do so.
.

As mythologies go, see what happened at Walhalla lately. It serves merely as a choral refrain nowadays.

Even then, the cyborg's quest continues