God is an Impossibility

[Prismatic567]

I have argued, in doctrinal principle, a Christian is one who had [by implication] entered into a personal covenant with God/Jesus to comply with the contractual terms as in the Gospel. God is projected as perfect in the Gospel and relevant supporting verses from the Bible.
As such in principle, a Christian has to believe God is perfect and absolute as a contractual duty.

I agree some Christians may have doubts, but that is beside the point.
Point is once a person had entered into and signed a contract, he has no choice but be contractually bound to the terms of the contract, regardless of whatever feelings he has about the terms he has signed.

I assume that you're talking about the New Covenant, whereby a person has to believe in order to gain the reward of eternal life. That doesn't mean that everyone who claims to be a Christian, actually believes.

Nope not the new covenant.
The New Covenant is something like a general treaty offer to all people.
I am talking about a personal contract a Christian has to enter into with God/Jesus.
Somewhere or somehow, the person must be in his 'heart' has intention to accept Jesus/God as his savior via John 3:16.

If a Christian or Muslim were to claim and insist their god is less than perfect, then they are no more a Christian or Muslim.

What if they do everything else associated with the religion, believe that their respective religions are correct, but don't believe that the God they believe in is perfect? Does John 3:16 state that you have to believe God is perfect?

John 3:16 states one has to believe in Jesus - as son a God - and his message which in alignment with God's will.
'Believe' in this case would imply contractually bound in believing what Jesus stated and represented in the Gospel and relevant verses from the Bible.
The Gospel and relevant verses from the Bible state God is Perfect and Absolute.
Therefore the Christian is contractually bound to accept God is Perfect and Absolute.

To insist Jesus/God is not perfect and absolute would be a serious non-compliance of the contractual terms which would nullify the contract.

Show me which mainstream theistic religion claim their God is imperfect?

Did I claim that there was such a religion?

Just to reinforce my point there is none.

EVEN IF, there exist a religion which claim their God is imperfect, the majority of their believers - driven by the one-up instinct - naturally would prefer their God to be perfect and absolute so that there is no room for the god of others to dominate and make their God as inferior.

“One-up” instinct? Some humans may have such a desire, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it an "instinct". Maybe you feel that way so deeply that it appears as an instinct to you?

This is very evident within anthropology.
It is very evident is school-yards with young kids.
This inherent instinct is not explicit with adults but very noticeable in the majority.

I had stated, those who accepted an imperfect God are likely to be the ignorant ones due to traditions, etc. Humans are 'programmed' with a one-up instinct in not settling for less than the other unless forced to by various constraints.

From my perspective, this is a distinctly personal view.

You are not observant and well read on this point and subject.

I have stated, the personal opinions of the believers is not critical to this argument.

I disagree. If all believers don't believe that God is perfect, then your argument has to shift to the holy texts.

The holy texts is fundamental.
There is no way you can ignore them for the 90% of theists.

Yes, I noticed that but you insist the believers [SOME, etc.] do not believe that.

Which is possible.

Your point in this case is toothless.

Your only counter to my argument is to prove the holy texts of the mainstream religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Bahai, do not claim their God is perfect and absolute. The bolded religions represent 90% of all theists.

So you perceive. Why would I acknowledge what the holy texts say about God, then claim that they don't say this?

Note my Premise 2 is dependent of God has to be perfect.
Because the holy texts said so, God is perfect, so my argument stands.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

This is very evident within anthropology.
It is very evident is school-yards with young kids.
This inherent instinct is not explicit with adults but very noticeable in the majority.

I think that another way to define this is a desire or drive to win. If you want to believe that is an instinct then fine. Although, isn't "one-up" or "winning" a concept?

You are not observant and well read on this point and subject.

Can you not see the implicit bias in such a statement? As the reason, you're saying that, is because I don't agree with you.

Also, you still haven't answered this;

Where is the contradiction in believing that a being possessing all the Omni's exists by reason of faith? What is that belief contradicting?

With regards to this series of dialogue;

I have stated, the personal opinions of the believers is not critical to this argument.

I disagree. If all believers don't believe that God is perfect, then your argument has to shift to the holy texts.

The holy texts is fundamental.
There is no way you can ignore them for the 90% of theists.

I don't think I was right... There could be theists who don't believe that God is perfect, but the theists who do believe that God is perfect are relevant to your argument, as well as the holy texts. That seems more logical.

[felix dakat]

Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

So,

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

How do you know? Absolute perfection is impossible to grasp from my finite perspective. So like "justice" or "unconditional love" it's a symbol for which I have analogies but I recognize that none of the analogies are exact.

[Artimas]

Wisdom, is the all perfect god he dismisses and we are agents that are apart of the string of change/experience that seek out such /god/. The terminology and context had been misinterpreted. People didn't understand it then but they do now, it's psychology. Projection of the interior of the human mind and being onto language in reality, "gods".

To understand something, first you must attach it to form, aka, create language, art, expression, etc.

Everything understood has imagery, a context
/field of details.
Information + Form/imagery = language.

The only way they used to know how to understand their mind is through the attribution of the ideas that are "gods".

Wisdom is merely practical knowledge that optimize within constraints.

You cannot assign 'wisdom' to a god without first proving god exists as real.

Everything understood has imagery, a context
/field of details.
Information + Form/imagery = language.

But such a formulation can relate to real things and also illusions.
An image of an apple on the table and in mind can be verified empirically as real.

But the mind can also produce illusions that are not real.
Example, a mirage is an illusion in the mind which has imagery, context/field of detail, which can be expressed in information and language.
But a mirage is not real, it is only an illusion in the mind.

It the same with the idea of God, it is thought only in the mind and is a transcendental illusion which cannot be represented by anything that can be justified as real.

In reality Everything is illusion except pain, wisdom and few other things.

What is or isn't real isn't for us to decide, for one period in time, we too were not "real". All is past or future if something isn't in the present it doesn't mean it isn't real, it means it isn't observable to our being immediate, it's a string. All that we may comprehend, I feel is real. For the dreamer can still die in a dream.
The Plane wasn't real either at one time, then we invent it through wisdom, aka understanding of knowledge, this is the god in which is sought, which science is a tool of such god as well.

Wisdom isn't assigned to a God, wisdom comes from it. It's the path of good, the knowledge of both "good and evil" wisdom is real, wisdom is it. It isn't assigned to it.. it is it. Wisdom is the understanding of knowledge and the application of such justly.

[Prismatic567]

Also, you still haven't answered this;

Where is the contradiction in believing that a being possessing all the Omni's exists by reason of faith? What is that belief contradicting?

I have not stated there is a contradiction in the above.

When one relies on faith [belief without proofs nor justified reasons], one claim for whatever based on one's thoughts because there is no need for proofs nor justified reasons.
Thus a person can rely on faith to believe 'a being possessing all the Omni's exists.'
A person can also believe a 'square-circle' exists based on faith.

In the case of reliance on faith, one can claim whatever proposition without limitations.
I thought this point is so obvious that I did not catch the point in your above statement.

[Prismatic567]

Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

So,

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

How do you know? Absolute perfection is impossible to grasp from my finite perspective. So like "justice" or "unconditional love" it's a symbol for which I have analogies but I recognize that none of the analogies are exact.

This is not about knowledge from experience.
My point is inferred from logical deduction.

Sure, analogies can be different.

If one claim there is "perfect justice" of "perfect unconditional love" these are impossible to exist as real.

When a person declares "unconditional love" for something, that is not totally unconditional or absolute. Such "unconditional love' is conditioned to the person's feelings which is fundamentally subjective, thus not absolutely unconditional.

[Prismatic567]

But such a formulation can relate to real things and also illusions.
An image of an apple on the table and in mind can be verified empirically as real.

But the mind can also produce illusions that are not real.
Example, a mirage is an illusion in the mind which has imagery, context/field of detail, which can be expressed in information and language.
But a mirage is not real, it is only an illusion in the mind.

It the same with the idea of God, it is thought only in the mind and is a transcendental illusion which cannot be represented by anything that can be justified as real.

In reality Everything is illusion except pain, wisdom and few other things.

What is or isn't real isn't for us to decide, for one period in time, we too were not "real". All is past or future if something isn't in the present it doesn't mean it isn't real, it means it isn't observable to our being immediate, it's a string. All that we may comprehend, I feel is real. For the dreamer can still die in a dream.
The Plane wasn't real either at one time, then we invent it through wisdom, aka understanding of knowledge, this is the god in which is sought, which science is a tool of such god as well.

Wisdom isn't assigned to a God, wisdom comes from it [God].
It's the path of good, the knowledge of both "good and evil" wisdom is real, wisdom is it. It isn't assigned to it.. it is it. Wisdom is the understanding of knowledge and the application of such justly.

Note your point;
Wisdom isn't assigned to a God, wisdom comes from it [God].

In the above you merely assume God exists but provide no proof for it's existence.

It is only in one sense, everything is an illusion.
Note the concept of Maya in Hinduism.
In this case, God as the representation of everything is also an illusion, thus an impossibility to be real.

In other sense, everything is real.
But to be real, it need to be justified to be true.
What is real is fundamentally empirical which is verifiable via Science, plus what is real need to be reinforced with philosophical critical thinking.

God cannot be real, thus impossible to be real because God cannot be verified and justified by Science nor philosophical thinking.

Strings are not real per-se. Strings are merely a scientific speculation at present.
Even if strings are proven to be real, they have nothing to do with God which is not real.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

I have not stated there is a contradiction in the above.

If there is no contradiction, why do you compare belief in such a being to believing in a square circle, which is a contradiction? I think that things that are impossible are usually contradictory.

When one relies on faith [belief without proofs nor justified reasons], one claim for whatever based on one's thoughts because there is no need for proofs nor justified reasons.

I think that people will have justifications for their faith, such as scriptures, other texts or their experiences and observations. You may not agree that they are justifications, but they are for the people who have faith. They may not be right, but for them and others who share their beliefs, their beliefs are justified. That's one of the reasons why religions work as they do.

Thus a person can rely on faith to believe 'a being possessing all the Omni's exists.'

I'm not sure you mean by “rely on faith”?

A person can also believe a 'square-circle' exists based on faith.

Why would anyone believe that a square circle exists by faith? Religion/God and a square circle are different conceptually. Which may be why some people believe in God, but no one believes in square circles.

In the case of reliance on faith, one can claim whatever proposition without limitations.

I think that people with faith, like theists, believe in specific things like God, and because it is claimed that God is perfect and can do anything, they believe that, based upon a framework (the religion). But outside of what their religion purports, I am quite sure they recognise that there are limitations, and do not propose that things like square circles exist.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

I have not stated there is a contradiction in the above.

If there is no contradiction, why do you compare belief in such a being to believing in a square circle, which is a contradiction? I think that things that are impossible are usually contradictory.

I stated there is no contradiction in a theists relying on faith to believe in an omni-being.

It is only when theists claimed God an illusion is really real , that is a contradiction.
What is an illusion cannot be real - that is obvious.

When one relies on faith [belief without proofs nor justified reasons], one claim for whatever based on one's thoughts because there is no need for proofs nor justified reasons.

I think that people will have justifications for their faith, such as scriptures, other texts or their experiences and observations. You may not agree that they are justifications, but they are for the people who have faith. They may not be right, but for them and others who share their beliefs, their beliefs are justified. That's one of the reasons why religions work as they do.

Yes, people can have their own personal justifications for their faith, but it is not justified true beliefs as in Science and polished by philosophy-proper.

Theists rely on faith to believe God exists as real, but where is the God that is real available for verification and justification that it is really real?

Even since humans conjured up God [transcendental illusion] as a security blanket, no theists has ever produced the necessary direct evidences to verify and justify God is real empirically and philosophically.

Thus a person can rely on faith to believe 'a being possessing all the Omni's exists.'

I'm not sure you mean by “rely on faith”?

"rely" is to depend confidently; put trust in (usually followed by on or upon):
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rely?s=t
Seems obvious to me, wonder why you query?

A person can also believe a 'square-circle' exists based on faith.

Why would anyone believe that a square circle exists by faith? Religion/God and a square circle are different conceptually. Which may be why some people believe in God, but no one believes in square circles.

I am using square-circle as an analogy.
As explained above, square-circle and the idea of God, if they are claimed to be real, are both contradictions.

In the case of reliance on faith, one can claim whatever proposition without limitations.

I think that people with faith, like theists, believe in specific things like God, and because it is claimed that God is perfect and can do anything, they believe that, based upon a framework (the religion). But outside of what their religion purports, I am quite sure they recognise that there are limitations, and do not propose that things like square circles exist.

It is not likely the average person will ever insist square-circles can exist as real. Like I said, I am highlighting it as an analogy to the belief God [an illusion] exists as real being a contradiction.

Most theists on average will never consider any other alternatives outside the framework of their religion unless they are beginning to have doubts on the way to be agnostic [like you] or non-theistic. The latter are a very low minority, say 5% of 5 billion?
This is why I insisted those who think their god are less than perfect or not absolute are not critical to this thread.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Thanks for your participation. I'm going to leave our discussion here. It has been both interesting and challenging.

[felix dakat]

Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

So,

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

How do you know? Absolute perfection is impossible to grasp from my finite perspective. So like "justice" or "unconditional love" it's a symbol for which I have analogies but I recognize that none of the analogies are exact.

This is not about knowledge from experience.
My point is inferred from logical deduction.

Sure, analogies can be different.

If one claim there is "perfect justice" or "perfect unconditional love" these are impossible to exist as real.

When a person declares "unconditional love" for something, that is not totally unconditional or absolute. Such "unconditional love' is conditioned to the person's feelings which is fundamentally subjective, thus not absolutely unconditional.

What happens to your thought when the concept "perfect" is replaced with the concept "infinite"?

Would you claim;

So,

PI. Infinity is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be infinite
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

?

[Artimas]

So,

PI. Infinity is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be infinite
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

?

Infinity is not an impossibility because energy, wisdom, pain and consciousness have not ended and never will.
If god is wisdom like I have stated as such, then god is both absolute and infinite at the same time, it’s simultaneous.

[Artimas]

But such a formulation can relate to real things and also illusions.
An image of an apple on the table and in mind can be verified empirically as real.

But the mind can also produce illusions that are not real.
Example, a mirage is an illusion in the mind which has imagery, context/field of detail, which can be expressed in information and language.
But a mirage is not real, it is only an illusion in the mind.

It the same with the idea of God, it is thought only in the mind and is a transcendental illusion which cannot be represented by anything that can be justified as real.

In reality Everything is illusion except pain, wisdom and few other things.

What is or isn't real isn't for us to decide, for one period in time, we too were not "real". All is past or future if something isn't in the present it doesn't mean it isn't real, it means it isn't observable to our being immediate, it's a string. All that we may comprehend, I feel is real. For the dreamer can still die in a dream.
The Plane wasn't real either at one time, then we invent it through wisdom, aka understanding of knowledge, this is the god in which is sought, which science is a tool of such god as well.

Wisdom isn't assigned to a God, wisdom comes from it [God].
It's the path of good, the knowledge of both "good and evil" wisdom is real, wisdom is it. It isn't assigned to it.. it is it. Wisdom is the understanding of knowledge and the application of such justly.

Note your point;
Wisdom isn't assigned to a God, wisdom comes from it [God].

In the above you merely assume God exists but provide no proof for it's existence.

It is only in one sense, everything is an illusion.
Note the concept of Maya in Hinduism.
In this case, God as the representation of everything is also an illusion, thus an impossibility to be real.

In other sense, everything is real.
But to be real, it need to be justified to be true.
What is real is fundamentally empirical which is verifiable via Science, plus what is real need to be reinforced with philosophical critical thinking.

God cannot be real, thus impossible to be real because God cannot be verified and justified by Science nor philosophical thinking.

Strings are not real per-se. Strings are merely a scientific speculation at present.
Even if strings are proven to be real, they have nothing to do with God which is not real.

Cause and effect are the string that is very real. You take things too literal. I don’t assume god exists when god is wisdom, it isn’t an entity, the word god is only what it is to describe what is difficult to depict. Wisdom is both infinite and absolute, which is this “god”. We evolve based off of the consciousness of knowledge, which is wisdom, we exist due to wisdom and our evolution of consciousness, aka god and our. If no consciousness and no ability to be aware, would we exist? We’d never know.

[Prismatic567]

Cause and effect are the string that is very real. You take things too literal. I don’t assume god exists when god is wisdom, it isn’t an entity, the word god is only what it is to describe what is difficult to depict. Wisdom is both infinite and absolute, which is this “god”. We evolve based off of the consciousness of knowledge, which is wisdom, we exist due to wisdom and our evolution of consciousness, aka god and our. If no consciousness and no ability to be aware, would we exist? We’d never know.

Cause and Effect, i.e. causality is real but not absolutely real.
Hume argued 'cause and effect' is not an absolute principle but one that emerged from human psychology and experiences from constant conjunction, customs and habits.

It is not the question of 'would we exist?'
The fact is we exists.
As such we should start from facts [i.e. humans exists] and not from speculations.

If we start from speculations we don't have grounds, thus the possibility of ending with nothing to speak off. If we NEVER ever know, then we never ever 'speak' [feasibility of being real] of it.

Note Wittgenstein's,

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

It one cannot speak or difficult to depict, one should just shut up and don't speak of it at all.

Note the theory of evolution, the big bang, dark matters, are very complex theories but we have no difficulty in proving these theories with the necessary limitations. These are not difficult to depict speculatively and admitted as a speculation.

You can speculate whatever you want, but why use a controversial term like "God" which is an illusion and an impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&p=2745155&hilit=conceptualization#p2745155

[felix dakat]

So,

PI. Infinity is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be infinite
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

?

Infinity is not an impossibility because energy, wisdom, pain and consciousness have not ended and never will.
If god is wisdom like I have stated as such, then god is both absolute and infinite at the same time, it’s simultaneous.

I don't think the idea of infinity is dependent on any particular. In the more or less of possible finite things I never reach either the largest or the smallest. Beyond every smallest there is a smaller and beyond every largest a larger. No matter how far we measure, there's always a new limit. I see no way of passing from the domain of limits to the unlimited, i.e., from the domain of the finite to Infinity. Therefore, it seems to me, we can have knowledge only of finite things not of the infinite. We can't reach the infinite no matter how far we progress in the finite . All relations remain within the finite. There's an unbridgeable gap between the finite and the infinite. Yet the possibility of infinity beyond the ever-expanding known finite cannot be denied.

[Artimas]

Cause and effect are the string that is very real. You take things too literal. I don’t assume god exists when god is wisdom, it isn’t an entity, the word god is only what it is to describe what is difficult to depict. Wisdom is both infinite and absolute, which is this “god”. We evolve based off of the consciousness of knowledge, which is wisdom, we exist due to wisdom and our evolution of consciousness, aka god and our. If no consciousness and no ability to be aware, would we exist? We’d never know.

Cause and Effect, i.e. causality is real but not absolutely real.
Hume argued 'cause and effect' is not an absolute principle but one that emerged from human psychology and experiences from constant conjunction, customs and habits.

It is not the question of 'would we exist?'
The fact is we exists.
As such we should start from facts [i.e. humans exists] and not from speculations.

If we start from speculations we don't have grounds, thus the possibility of ending with nothing to speak off. If we NEVER ever know, then we never ever 'speak' [feasibility of being real] of it.

Note Wittgenstein's,

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

It one cannot speak or difficult to depict, one should just shut up and don't speak of it at all.

Note the theory of evolution, the big bang, dark matters, are very complex theories but we have no difficulty in proving these theories with the necessary limitations. These are not difficult to depict speculatively and admitted as a speculation.

You can speculate whatever you want, but why use a controversial term like "God" which is an illusion and an impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&p=2745155&hilit=conceptualization#p2745155

It’s not really only/merely speculative to understand that humanity at one point in time did not exist. You can arrive at such a conclusion via a priori, humanity did not exist when the universe was forming, the conditions were not stable enough to grow complex as we needed in order to be human and exist as such. The causal chain isn’t based on psychology it is merely observable with and in it. The cause and effect happened before man and that is how man came to be.

Something to observe existed before the observer and the observer is directly resulted from that something which is able to be observed. Science proves it by the age of the universe and it’s unlivable conditions previous to our observing it now.

It’s not the term of “god” that is not real or is illusion but merely the wrong idea behind the word that has been associated with the word wrongly. The idea of god you use and defend against is not the idea of god that was meant to be interpreted psychologically, so how can one find proof of such or if not even looking for the right thing? I am not trying to tell you you’re wrong in the idea of god you argue against, I am telling you the idea of god that you entertain as a whole is wrong and you waste your time in attempt at disproving it since that idea is not even there to begin with. Don’t listen only to the past men and how they interpreted it when you’re in the future in comparison to them and exposed to more information.
Take what is useful, discard what is poison.
Truth is consistent, always even from different perspective.

I cannot find proof of apples or properly disprove such, if the idea I place behind the word apples, are oranges.

We place the idea of an entity behind the word god by a psychological mistake of mixing ourselves with the idea of it, instead of the idea that was meant to be put behind it, which was wisdom, not an entity but a force constant in its evolution and changing.

The causal chain is as follows

unconscious > subconscious > consciousness
This is psychology of it, the chain itself however is as follows.

Physics > biology > psychology.

The physics of unconscious energy and matter lead to the subconscious single cell and animalistic biological organisms, the biological organisms then lead to a complexity of such magnitude that consciousness spawned and psychology, a balance of sorts. This psychology we use to view the past chain, biology and physics as well as our own psychology. Cause and effect evolved into conscious choice as well, it appears as not absolutely real because since psychology spawned out of biology and physics, free will spawned out of the deterministic methods that physics and biology used previous.

[Artimas]

So,

PI. Infinity is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be infinite
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

?

Infinity is not an impossibility because energy, wisdom, pain and consciousness have not ended and never will.
If god is wisdom like I have stated as such, then god is both absolute and infinite at the same time, it’s simultaneous.

I don't think the idea of infinity is dependent on any particular. In the more or less of possible finite things I never reach either the largest or the smallest. Beyond every smallest there is a smaller and beyond every largest a larger. No matter how far we measure, there's always a new limit. I see no way of passing from the domain of limits to the unlimited, i.e., from the domain of the finite to Infinity. Therefore, it seems to me, we can have knowledge only of finite things not of the infinite. We can't reach the infinite no matter how far we progress in the finite . All relations remain within the finite. There's an unbridgeable gap between the finite and the infinite. Yet the possibility of infinity beyond the ever-expanding known finite cannot be denied.

We live in that gap between finite and infinite. This present mortal body is finite and as I function with and in such I may only gather finitely but can see the infinite of which I may never comprehend fully in this singular form of life but am directly part of. For every answer, 6 questions arise back out of it, who, why, when, where, what, how, which is the constant continuity that creates such infinity. Impossible for one to understand all questions and answers but collectively we may move further into it and be aware that there is such and near all if not all is possible.

The pursuit of deification of ourself collectively, is this “god” we envision and it is only done through our collective effort of understanding knowledge equating to wisdom. And since the law of thermodynamics states energy only changes but never ceases, we have forever to deify ourselves, even if humanity goes extinct, consciousness will resurface into other entities to continue its pursuit of understanding. Evolution and this system is powerful and anything but imperfect, it’s a work of true genius on scales not fathomable to one alone. The growth of consciousness is our growth of wisdom and our growth of wisdom is the exploration and becoming of this god collectively. Make any sense?

[Prismatic567]

It’s not really only/merely speculative to understand that humanity at one point in time did not exist. You can arrive at such a conclusion via a priori, humanity did not exist when the universe was forming, the conditions were not stable enough to grow complex as we needed in order to be human and exist as such. The causal chain isn’t based on psychology it is merely observable with and in it. The cause and effect happened before man and that is how man came to be.

Something to observe existed before the observer and the observer is directly resulted from that something which is able to be observed. Science proves it by the age of the universe and it’s unlivable conditions previous to our observing it now.

There is no need to rely on the a priori.
It is a scientific fact, in terms of space and time, there were things [planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.] that existed prior to the emergence of human beings.
But a scientific fact is merely a polished conjecture [hypothesis] - Popper.
Scientific facts are derived from Scientific Framework and Methods which is created by human beings.
In this case, it is the human beings that is the critical factor in determining what is fact.
Facts do not exist absolutely independent of human beings.
Facts are interdependent with human beings, thus psychology.

It is a scientific fact, the moon pre-existed humans, but that fact is man-made it is not absolutely independent of man.
But such a point is not an issue whether man pre-existed humans or the fact is man-made.
In this case, there is no issue with the 'moon' or any empirical thing which can be empirically verified as real.

But if anyone were to claim a God pre-existed and created the Universe or whatever 'that' [non-empirical] is, then it become an issue because there is no way one can verify the thing [God, etc.] that is claimed.

It’s not the term of “god” that is not real or is illusion but merely the wrong idea behind the word that has been associated with the word wrongly. The idea of god you use and defend against is not the idea of god that was meant to be interpreted psychologically, so how can one find proof of such or if not even looking for the right thing? I am not trying to tell you you’re wrong in the idea of god you argue against, I am telling you the idea of god that you entertain as a whole is wrong and you waste your time in attempt at disproving it since that idea is not even there to begin with. Don’t listen only to the past men and how they interpreted it when you’re in the future in comparison to them and exposed to more information.
Take what is useful, discard what is poison.
Truth is consistent, always even from different perspective.

My sole purpose of the thread is to squash the claim of a God as defined by theists. The term God is not defined by me.
These are the theists' definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

If your claim is not within the above definition of God, that is off topic.

If you claim is not God as defined above, then you need to open a new thread, like,
"X exists as real"
and provide your argument and proof without using the term God as all.

I cannot find proof of apples or properly disprove such, if the idea I place behind the word apples, are oranges.

We place the idea of an entity behind the word god by a psychological mistake of mixing ourselves with the idea of it, instead of the idea that was meant to be put behind it, which was wisdom, not an entity but a force constant in its evolution and changing.

The causal chain is as follows

unconscious > subconscious > consciousness
This is psychology of it, the chain itself however is as follows.

Physics > biology > psychology.

The physics of unconscious energy and matter lead to the subconscious single cell and animalistic biological organisms, the biological organisms then lead to a complexity of such magnitude that consciousness spawned and psychology, a balance of sorts. This psychology we use to view the past chain, biology and physics as well as our own psychology. Cause and effect evolved into conscious choice as well, it appears as not absolutely real because since psychology spawned out of biology and physics, free will spawned out of the deterministic methods that physics and biology used previous.

I disagree.
In the ultimate perspective it is;

psychology (subject of Physics > biology > psychology> etc.)

Note Psychology [not as a subject] is related to mental aspect of human behavior.

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind. Psychology includes the study of conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
-wiki

If you are referring to "The physics of Unconscious Energy" then it should be done with Physics and not Religion, Spirituality and Theology.

[Prismatic567]

So,

PI. Infinity is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be infinite
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

?

Infinite mean there is always something larger or smaller within a series, e.g. 'turtle all the way' without end.
In this case, God is not perfect nor absolute.
God is claimed [by theists] to be without a beginning and an end.

We live in that gap between finite and infinite. This present mortal body is finite and as I function with and in such I may only gather finitely but can see the infinite of which I may never comprehend fully in this singular form of life but am directly part of. For every answer, 6 questions arise back out of it, who, why, when, where, what, how, which is the constant continuity that creates such infinity. Impossible for one to understand all questions and answers but collectively we may move further into it and be aware that there is such and near all if not all is possible.

The pursuit of deification of ourself collectively, is this “god” we envision and it is only done through our collective effort of understanding knowledge equating to wisdom. And since the law of thermodynamics states energy only changes but never ceases, we have forever to deify ourselves, even if humanity goes extinct, consciousness will resurface into other entities to continue its pursuit of understanding. Evolution and this system is powerful and anything but imperfect, it’s a work of true genius on scales not fathomable to one alone. The growth of consciousness is our growth of wisdom and our growth of wisdom is the exploration and becoming of this god collectively. Make any sense?

You use the term 'infinite' where we do not know its beginning nor ending.
As defined by theists, God is without beginning nor ending.

You are beating around the bush and is unable to nail what you are trying to present as 'god'.
This inability is due to psychology.
You are trying to reify the impossible thing to be something real and that is driven by psychology.

It is easier to explain why theists are theistic basing on their inherent psychology than trying to prove God exists as real. It is impossible to prove God exists as real because God is an impossibility to be real in the first place.

[Artimas]

So,

PI. Infinity is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be infinite
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility.

?

Infinite mean there is always something larger or smaller within a series, e.g. 'turtle all the way' without end.
In this case, God is not perfect nor absolute.
God is claimed [by theists] to be without a beginning and an end.

We live in that gap between finite and infinite. This present mortal body is finite and as I function with and in such I may only gather finitely but can see the infinite of which I may never comprehend fully in this singular form of life but am directly part of. For every answer, 6 questions arise back out of it, who, why, when, where, what, how, which is the constant continuity that creates such infinity. Impossible for one to understand all questions and answers but collectively we may move further into it and be aware that there is such and near all if not all is possible.

The pursuit of deification of ourself collectively, is this “god” we envision and it is only done through our collective effort of understanding knowledge equating to wisdom. And since the law of thermodynamics states energy only changes but never ceases, we have forever to deify ourselves, even if humanity goes extinct, consciousness will resurface into other entities to continue its pursuit of understanding. Evolution and this system is powerful and anything but imperfect, it’s a work of true genius on scales not fathomable to one alone. The growth of consciousness is our growth of wisdom and our growth of wisdom is the exploration and becoming of this god collectively. Make any sense?

You use the term 'infinite' where we do not know its beginning nor ending.
As defined by theists, God is without beginning nor ending.

You are beating around the bush and is unable to nail what you are trying to present as 'god'.
This inability is due to psychology.
You are trying to reify the impossible thing to be something real and that is driven by psychology.

It is easier to explain why theists are theistic basing on their inherent psychology than trying to prove God exists as real. It is impossible to prove God exists as real because God is an impossibility to be real in the first place.

Define beginning and ending, there is no ending or beginning, it always has been and always will be. If there is energy, there is wisdom to be sought, just no observer to seek it, we are the god collectively becoming aware of itself through our reintegration with wisdom by consciousness. The expansion happens by energy taking form of diverse things, so there must be other variables coexisting with energy as well, inside of space. God is not a single entity in the sky.. what is impossible is or possible is dependent on our pursuit or lack of in what we deem such. Our own minds convince us of shortcuts, shortcuts lack quality. I made a thread on this topic before, on why something such as “impossibility” seems to be as such.

I don’t go off of what others describe god as that is rhetorical, that’s where you make your mistake. You’re arguing against a way outdated concept of what god is.

[Artimas]

It’s not really only/merely speculative to understand that humanity at one point in time did not exist. You can arrive at such a conclusion via a priori, humanity did not exist when the universe was forming, the conditions were not stable enough to grow complex as we needed in order to be human and exist as such. The causal chain isn’t based on psychology it is merely observable with and in it. The cause and effect happened before man and that is how man came to be.

Something to observe existed before the observer and the observer is directly resulted from that something which is able to be observed. Science proves it by the age of the universe and it’s unlivable conditions previous to our observing it now.

There is no need to rely on the a priori.
It is a scientific fact, in terms of space and time, there were things [planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.] that existed prior to the emergence of human beings.
But a scientific fact is merely a polished conjecture [hypothesis] - Popper.
Scientific facts are derived from Scientific Framework and Methods which is created by human beings.
In this case, it is the human beings that is the critical factor in determining what is fact.
Facts do not exist absolutely independent of human beings.
Facts are interdependent with human beings, thus psychology.

It is a scientific fact, the moon pre-existed humans, but that fact is man-made it is not absolutely independent of man.
But such a point is not an issue whether man pre-existed humans or the fact is man-made.
In this case, there is no issue with the 'moon' or any empirical thing which can be empirically verified as real.

But if anyone were to claim a God pre-existed and created the Universe or whatever 'that' [non-empirical] is, then it become an issue because there is no way one can verify the thing [God, etc.] that is claimed.

It’s not the term of “god” that is not real or is illusion but merely the wrong idea behind the word that has been associated with the word wrongly. The idea of god you use and defend against is not the idea of god that was meant to be interpreted psychologically, so how can one find proof of such or if not even looking for the right thing? I am not trying to tell you you’re wrong in the idea of god you argue against, I am telling you the idea of god that you entertain as a whole is wrong and you waste your time in attempt at disproving it since that idea is not even there to begin with. Don’t listen only to the past men and how they interpreted it when you’re in the future in comparison to them and exposed to more information.
Take what is useful, discard what is poison.
Truth is consistent, always even from different perspective.

My sole purpose of the thread is to squash the claim of a God as defined by theists. The term God is not defined by me.
These are the theists' definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

If your claim is not within the above definition of God, that is off topic.

If you claim is not God as defined above, then you need to open a new thread, like,
"X exists as real"
and provide your argument and proof without using the term God as all.

I cannot find proof of apples or properly disprove such, if the idea I place behind the word apples, are oranges.

We place the idea of an entity behind the word god by a psychological mistake of mixing ourselves with the idea of it, instead of the idea that was meant to be put behind it, which was wisdom, not an entity but a force constant in its evolution and changing.

The causal chain is as follows

unconscious > subconscious > consciousness
This is psychology of it, the chain itself however is as follows.

Physics > biology > psychology.

The physics of unconscious energy and matter lead to the subconscious single cell and animalistic biological organisms, the biological organisms then lead to a complexity of such magnitude that consciousness spawned and psychology, a balance of sorts. This psychology we use to view the past chain, biology and physics as well as our own psychology. Cause and effect evolved into conscious choice as well, it appears as not absolutely real because since psychology spawned out of biology and physics, free will spawned out of the deterministic methods that physics and biology used previous.

I disagree.
In the ultimate perspective it is;

psychology (subject of Physics > biology > psychology> etc.)

Note Psychology [not as a subject] is related to mental aspect of human behavior.

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind. Psychology includes the study of conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
-wiki

If you are referring to "The physics of Unconscious Energy" then it should be done with Physics and not Religion, Spirituality and Theology.

Then you aren’t doing philosophy here if you can’t entertain the diverse ideas of what god is when the idea I am speaking of is based off of logic and reason and not out dated concepts that no longer serve us but are ignorant, but then only stick with a one definition, it is insanity to repeat the same thing and expect different results.

You tell me god doesn’t exist, I make the argument that your view of god is skewed and explain why then your response is telling me I’m off topic because the objectively observable god I explain and depict is not aligning with your illusion of one, which that concept of god is far out dated and not up to date with today’s information.

Facts exist always, independent of the observer, aka, humans/consciousness. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear or see it, it still falls and it waits until one is conscious of it, change never ceases and does NOT rely on human perception. If it did then one in a coma should stop aging by that logic.

You should change the name of your thread to theistic idea of god being an entity in the sky, is an impossibility, not just “god is an impossibility” because I have given perfect explanation and examples here to depict that god is very real and apart of us and our search for it (wisdom) being the reintegration and collective forming of it.

[Prismatic567]

It’s not really only/merely speculative to understand that humanity at one point in time did not exist. You can arrive at such a conclusion via a priori, humanity did not exist when the universe was forming, the conditions were not stable enough to grow complex as we needed in order to be human and exist as such. The causal chain isn’t based on psychology it is merely observable with and in it. The cause and effect happened before man and that is how man came to be.

Something to observe existed before the observer and the observer is directly resulted from that something which is able to be observed. Science proves it by the age of the universe and it’s unlivable conditions previous to our observing it now.

There is no need to rely on the a priori.
It is a scientific fact, in terms of space and time, there were things [planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.] that existed prior to the emergence of human beings.
But a scientific fact is merely a polished conjecture [hypothesis] - Popper.
Scientific facts are derived from Scientific Framework and Methods which is created by human beings.
In this case, it is the human beings that is the critical factor in determining what is fact.
Facts do not exist absolutely independent of human beings.
Facts are interdependent with human beings, thus psychology.

It is a scientific fact, the moon pre-existed humans, but that fact is man-made it is not absolutely independent of man.
But such a point is not an issue whether man pre-existed humans or the fact is man-made.
In this case, there is no issue with the 'moon' or any empirical thing which can be empirically verified as real.

But if anyone were to claim a God pre-existed and created the Universe or whatever 'that' [non-empirical] is, then it become an issue because there is no way one can verify the thing [God, etc.] that is claimed.

It’s not the term of “god” that is not real or is illusion but merely the wrong idea behind the word that has been associated with the word wrongly. The idea of god you use and defend against is not the idea of god that was meant to be interpreted psychologically, so how can one find proof of such or if not even looking for the right thing? I am not trying to tell you you’re wrong in the idea of god you argue against, I am telling you the idea of god that you entertain as a whole is wrong and you waste your time in attempt at disproving it since that idea is not even there to begin with. Don’t listen only to the past men and how they interpreted it when you’re in the future in comparison to them and exposed to more information.
Take what is useful, discard what is poison.
Truth is consistent, always even from different perspective.

My sole purpose of the thread is to squash the claim of a God as defined by theists. The term God is not defined by me.
These are the theists' definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

If your claim is not within the above definition of God, that is off topic.

If you claim is not God as defined above, then you need to open a new thread, like,
"X exists as real"
and provide your argument and proof without using the term God as all.

I cannot find proof of apples or properly disprove such, if the idea I place behind the word apples, are oranges.

We place the idea of an entity behind the word god by a psychological mistake of mixing ourselves with the idea of it, instead of the idea that was meant to be put behind it, which was wisdom, not an entity but a force constant in its evolution and changing.

The causal chain is as follows

unconscious > subconscious > consciousness
This is psychology of it, the chain itself however is as follows.

Physics > biology > psychology.

The physics of unconscious energy and matter lead to the subconscious single cell and animalistic biological organisms, the biological organisms then lead to a complexity of such magnitude that consciousness spawned and psychology, a balance of sorts. This psychology we use to view the past chain, biology and physics as well as our own psychology. Cause and effect evolved into conscious choice as well, it appears as not absolutely real because since psychology spawned out of biology and physics, free will spawned out of the deterministic methods that physics and biology used previous.

I disagree.
In the ultimate perspective it is;

psychology (subject of Physics > biology > psychology> etc.)

Note Psychology [not as a subject] is related to mental aspect of human behavior.

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind. Psychology includes the study of conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
-wiki

If you are referring to "The physics of Unconscious Energy" then it should be done with Physics and not Religion, Spirituality and Theology.

Then you aren’t doing philosophy here if you can’t entertain the diverse ideas of what god is when the idea I am speaking of is based off of logic and reason and not out dated concepts that no longer serve us but are ignorant, but then only stick with a one definition, it is insanity to repeat the same thing and expect different results.

You tell me god doesn’t exist, I make the argument that your view of god is skewed and explain why then your response is telling me I’m off topic because the objectively observable god I explain and depict is not aligning with your illusion of one, which that concept of god is far out dated and not up to date with today’s information.

I had stated very clearly, the thread is against the theists' definition, not mine.
Here are the listing of the theistic definition of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I don't have to offer my own definition of God since to me, God is an impossibility to be real.

I don't have to change my title because I have already stated what type of God I am arguing against in the OP.

If your 'god' or whatever, do not fit into any of the above, then you are off topic.

Artimas; "the objectively observable god"
If your god is "the objectively observable god" that would be an empirical God, in that case, you'll need to bring the evidence to verify that God empirically.
Btw, an empirical God even if proven is at best a polished conjecture.

I would suggest you start a new OP with the title "An Objectively Observable God Exists" and I don't think you can go far with it.

Facts exist always, independent of the observer, aka, humans/consciousness. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear or see it, it still falls and it waits until one is conscious of it, change never ceases and does NOT rely on human perception. If it did then one in a coma should stop aging by that logic.

Note the above is a very contentious point within the philosophy community.
This was raised hundreds of years ago and philosophers are still arguing on it.
This is the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical Anti-Realists.

An independent reality external to the observer is very obvious in the common sense, science, etc. but not so clear-cut with philosophy.

My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realists' who take the view, reality is interdependent with the observer or rather the co-creator.

You should change the name of your thread to theistic idea of god being an entity in the sky, is an impossibility, not just “god is an impossibility” because I have given perfect explanation and examples here to depict that god is very real and apart of us and our search for it (wisdom) being the reintegration and collective forming of it.

I would say, God as an human-liked entity [bearded man] in the sky is empirically possible.
To prove, just bring the empirical evidence which intuitively is not probable.

The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.

[Artimas]

I had stated very clearly, the thread is against the theists' definition, not mine.
Here are the listing of the theistic definition of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I don't have to offer my own definition of God since to me, God is an impossibility to be real.

I don't have to change my title because I have already stated what type of God I am arguing against in the OP.

If your 'god' or whatever, do not fit into any of the above, then you are off topic.

Artimas; "the objectively observable god"
If your god is "the objectively observable god" that would be an empirical God, in that case, you'll need to bring the evidence to verify that God empirically.
Btw, an empirical God even if proven is at best a polished conjecture.

I would suggest you start a new OP with the title "An Objectively Observable God Exists" and I don't think you can go far with it.

Facts exist always, independent of the observer, aka, humans/consciousness. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear or see it, it still falls and it waits until one is conscious of it, change never ceases and does NOT rely on human perception. If it did then one in a coma should stop aging by that logic.

Note the above is a very contentious point within the philosophy community.
This was raised hundreds of years ago and philosophers are still arguing on it.
This is the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical Anti-Realists.

An independent reality external to the observer is very obvious in the common sense, science, etc. but not so clear-cut with philosophy.

My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realists' who take the view, reality is interdependent with the observer or rather the co-creator.

I would say, God as an human-liked entity [bearded man] in the sky is empirically possible.
To prove, just bring the empirical evidence which intuitively is not probable.

The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.

The empirical evidence isn’t a single object, it isn’t singular but more so a broad field of inter-relating subjects and functioning between man and the wisdom to gain within reality by the understanding of contextual scenarios.

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.

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

I had stated very clearly, the thread is against the theists' definition, not mine.
Here are the listing of the theistic definition of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I don't have to offer my own definition of God since to me, God is an impossibility to be real.

I don't have to change my title because I have already stated what type of God I am arguing against in the OP.

If your 'god' or whatever, do not fit into any of the above, then you are off topic.

Artimas; "the objectively observable god"
If your god is "the objectively observable god" that would be an empirical God, in that case, you'll need to bring the evidence to verify that God empirically.
Btw, an empirical God even if proven is at best a polished conjecture.

I would suggest you start a new OP with the title "An Objectively Observable God Exists" and I don't think you can go far with it.

Facts exist always, independent of the observer, aka, humans/consciousness. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear or see it, it still falls and it waits until one is conscious of it, change never ceases and does NOT rely on human perception. If it did then one in a coma should stop aging by that logic.

Note the above is a very contentious point within the philosophy community.
This was raised hundreds of years ago and philosophers are still arguing on it.
This is the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical Anti-Realists.

An independent reality external to the observer is very obvious in the common sense, science, etc. but not so clear-cut with philosophy.

My view is that of the Philosophical Anti-Realists' who take the view, reality is interdependent with the observer or rather the co-creator.

I would say, God as an human-liked entity [bearded man] in the sky is empirically possible.
To prove, just bring the empirical evidence which intuitively is not probable.

The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.

The empirical evidence isn’t a single object, it isn’t singular but more so a broad field of inter-relating subjects and functioning between man and the wisdom to gain within reality by the understanding of contextual scenarios.

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;
https://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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.

And so after thousands of years of theists an idea is introduced by some philosophers about a mathematically perfect God, and suddenly no theist would accept anything else, even though they had before and some still do. So, the above paragraph contains its own refutation since before these guys theists conceived of God as not absolutely perfect - which can be seen in the myths and descriptions of God in a wide variety of cultures, including the OT where a clearly not perfect God - who gets cranky, who makes bets with the Devil, who sends angels down to destroy things he has made...and so on...iow having a very human-like temperment and not seeming to have expected certain outcomes since they piss him off.

Of course people will say God is perfect, because they think of God as so beyond us God might as well be perfect. But humans have a long history of fallible very humanlike deities.

Even Jesus on the cross doubted his father, who is supposed to be himself. Either Jesus was not perfect, since he doubted God, or God is not perfect since he was Jesus doubting.

The argument is also an argument ad populum. Most people believe God is absolutely perfect (mathematicall), therefore if there is a God, that God would have to be perfect like that, but such a God cannot exist.

That is such an illogical argument, not just for the ad populum idea, but also because it is an argument based on poison fruit.

The majority of theists believe God is X. Therefore if there was a God, God would have to be X. These people are wrong, there is no God. If they are wrong, then they are not a good source of information.

Further most people who believe in Darwinian evolution have all sorts of misconceptions about it. They don't understand the epigenetic phenomena are not quite Lamarkian. They think it means survival of the fittest. And so on.

Just because the majority of believers in X believe something that does not mean we get to use their version of the belief to test the belief.

Prismatic needs there to be as the only possible deity a mathematically perfect deity.

So he says that is the only possible one and then uses that to refute

theism

in general

This is illogical on so many fronts it's like dealing with a teenager who thinks the constitution entails he doesn't have to listen to his parents about household rules.

And it has gone on for years, with P repeating the same ludicrous arguments where he will even tell theists what they are supposed to believe and then show how what they are supposed to believe is wrong - also using faulty deduction even with his poor foundation.

I will bet he has not had the slightest feedback IRL from someone with a real foundation in philosophy or comparative religion

but here he is with his proofs.

Snore.