God is an Impossibility

[Veritas Aequitas]

I find most of your counter views very stupid.
e.g.

'

Reality' is NOT ALL-there-IS.

ALL-THERE-IS is 'ALL-THERE-IS', or more commonly known as the Universe.

'Reality' is completely different to ALL-THERE-IS.

The above is one good example of nonsense you are spouting.
I am not going to waste time dealing with all those stupid points you presented.

Here are a few stupid points I will address.

I am NOT arguing for that at ALL. I do NOT participate in the ridiculousness, stupid and general waste of time that is "debating".

Then why are you participating in this forum.

I have said it previously, but you obviously missed it. I do NOT take sides and fight for that side. To me there are no sides. There is ONLY TRUTH, which when looking correctly is very easy to see, as well as distinguish from what is false.

It is only true in your la la land since nothing in the humanity's collective database of knowledge matter to you.

I NEVER argued for "philisophical realism".
All i have said here generally is;
Just being able to exist is absolutely amazing. Consider not being able to exist. What are you left with? What is left? Nothing!
If there is some thing, then no matter what shape or form it is in it is, by itself, pure and absolute perfection.
If you exist, then that is because of the Universe, Itself.
If the Universe did NOT exist, then neither would you.
You are existing.
There is some thing. That thing is called the Universe.
The existing Universe no matter what shape nor form It is in, It is in absolute perfection.
No matter what any other living thing thinks about it.
The ONLY reason there is any living thing that thinks is SOLELY because of the Universe, Itself.
The Universe, in any way It is, is absolute perfection.
Existence, or existing, IS absolute perfection. Because without existence there is NO thing, at all.

The point is "existence" "is" and "absolute perfection" are all very contentious issue without any basis of reality.
The terms by themselves are groundless.

"Existence" is not a predicate.
"is" is merely a copula
Absolute perfection is an illusion.

If you exist, then that is because of the Universe, Itself.
If the Universe did NOT exist, then neither would you.
You are existing.

Note there are counter arguments to the above.
One point is 'humans exist because of the Universe' and 'the Universe exists because of humans.'

Another point is how can 'you' come up with all the above without such being conditioned upon you and the collective?
The points you made surely cannot appear from nowhere without "you" as a subject within all-there-is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can not have objective conception. But you can see objectively. There is a BIG difference.

The above is another of your ignorant and stupid point.

Things are seen [sensed] subjectively.
Knowledge is enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason] via consensus.
That is the BIG difference.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To that self-labelled one called timeseeker your NEED to be right all the time has left you either taking out of context what I actually meant or you completely missing the point of what I say, in my responses. Your NEED to be right only allows you to see and respond to things that are NOT even there. For example, you write, see we already disagree. Of COURSE we already disagree. I NEVER said we did not nor would not. So WHY the stupid obvious remark? I NEVER ever suggest that we would not disagree, but that is what you saw.
...

I do not agree with TimeSeeker on the more finer views of philosophy.
I find TimeSeeker's views [right, wrong, psychopathic, violent etc.] are more realistic in the human sense than your la-la-land non-human transcendental illusory views.

[Age]

You can not have objective conception. But you can see objectively. There is a BIG difference.

The above is another of your ignorant and stupid point.

Ignorant to what, and, what does 'stupid' mean, to you?

Things are seen [sensed] subjectively.

And, things can also be seen [understood] objectively.

Knowledge is enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason] via consensus.

Agreed that consensus FORMS objectivity or not.

But knowledge is NOT always enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason]. This has been proven countless times already. Not just by you, but by me also.

Depending on the way one looks at things, this then influences if knowledge is enabled objectively or subjectively.

You do realize that ALL of this is solely depended upon the definitions that were are each giving to the words and to the terms we use, right?

That is the BIG difference.

YES, when YOU look at it that way.

NO, when YOU look at it another way. And,

PARTLY, when YOU look at it in another completely different way.

[Age]

I find most of your counter views very stupid.

I KNOW. You said this previously, and previously when you said the same thing, I said the same, I KNOW.

You do NOT have to keep repeating it, unless of course it makes you feel just that little bit better about yourself in some way. If it does, then go right ahead and keep doing it.

e.g.

'

Reality' is NOT ALL-there-IS.

ALL-THERE-IS is 'ALL-THERE-IS', or more commonly known as the Universe.

'Reality' is completely different to ALL-THERE-IS.

The above is one good example of nonsense you are spouting.
I am not going to waste time dealing with all those stupid points you presented.

Okay do not do that. But since you presented this "stupid" point of mine up.

Explain to the readers and listeners WHY you BELIEVE that this is a good example of nonsense I am sprouting. Just saying this is nonsense does NOT show in any way whatsoever why you believe it is nonsense.

You are an expert and pointing out what is stupid and nonsense to you, (which by the way we ALL KNOW what is stupid and nonsense to you), but you are very inept as actually explaining WHY it is stupid and nonsense to you. ONLY when you do that is it possible to for me to show the readers and listeners WHERE and HOW you are distorting what I am actually writing and saying.

Here are a few stupid points I will address.

I am NOT arguing for that at ALL. I do NOT participate in the ridiculousness, stupid and general waste of time that is "debating".

Then why are you participating in this forum.

ONLY to learn how to communicate better. I have already proven that so called "philosophy" in the past couple of hundred years has NOT produced any beneficial outcome of any real purpose.

Debating and philosophizing in the terms you use the words is a completely closed way of looking and seeing the world and thus a complete waste of time. But a philosophy forum, where people generally of the same ilk hang out, is a great place to learn how to communicate better. If I can get just one person in a philosophy forum to OPEN up, in order to be able to discover and see answers for and by them self, then I KNOW I would have succeeded in what I have set out all along.

I have said it previously, but you obviously missed it. I do NOT take sides and fight for that side. To me there are no sides. There is ONLY TRUTH, which when looking correctly is very easy to see, as well as distinguish from what is false.

It is only true in your la la land since nothing in the humanity's collective database of knowledge matter to you.

You are RIGHT in that nothing in human being's collective database of knowledge, which is obviously false, wrong, and incorrect, matters.

I have already explained, but again you probably over-looked it completely, is the fact that WHAT DOES ACTUALLY MATTER is what ALL human being's collectively AGREE UPON. ALL the rest that is in disagreement does NOT matter one iota. If some thing can be argued, then it is not worth arguing about.

I NEVER argued for "philisophical realism".
All i have said here generally is;
Just being able to exist is absolutely amazing. Consider not being able to exist. What are you left with? What is left? Nothing!
If there is some thing, then no matter what shape or form it is in it is, by itself, pure and absolute perfection.
If you exist, then that is because of the Universe, Itself.
If the Universe did NOT exist, then neither would you.
You are existing.
There is some thing. That thing is called the Universe.
The existing Universe no matter what shape nor form It is in, It is in absolute perfection.
No matter what any other living thing thinks about it.
The ONLY reason there is any living thing that thinks is SOLELY because of the Universe, Itself.
The Universe, in any way It is, is absolute perfection.
Existence, or existing, IS absolute perfection. Because without existence there is NO thing, at all.

The point is "existence" "is" and "absolute perfection" are all very contentious issue without any basis of reality.

So what if they are contentious issue? That is the main issue with reason and logic. Only when what is in contention comes into agreement, then the rest all falls into place naturally.

If the words 'existence', 'is', and 'absolute perfection' are without any basis of 'reality', then WHY are the words in 'existence'? WHY do you use those words, and WHY do you appear to insist they are all very contentious issues without any basis of reality? Let us start by waiting your response to WHAT does 'reality' mean first, before I ask you to reveal WHAT do the other four words mean, and before I will ask you if YOUR definition is a subjective one or an objective one.

Is not the whole point of each different word and term so that it has a different meaning or definition from another word and term so that is COULD BE easier to better understand the 'world', Universe, we live in, and, be able to better communicate that understanding with each other? Does not the different terms and words with their different definitions and meanings allows us more easily better understand the many different things that there are within the Universe?

The terms by themselves are groundless.

How many terms, by themselves, are NOT groundless?

Feel free to list as many as you like here for all of us to see.

"Existence" is not a predicate.
"is" is merely a copula
Absolute perfection is an illusion.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it. I am NOT here to convince you of any thing different.

I am just here to learn how to show you how to OPEN up so that you can see that actual and real truth of things, for and by your self.

If you exist, then that is because of the Universe, Itself.
If the Universe did NOT exist, then neither would you.
You are existing.

Note there are counter arguments to the above.
One point is 'humans exist because of the Universe' and 'the Universe exists because of humans.'

BUT, they are NOT counter arguments to the EXACT SAME thing. They are just two different ways of looking, at the same ONE and ONLY thing. There is ONLY ONE objective Truth, but, there are just as many different subjective truths as there are subjective ones looking.

Another point is how can 'you' come up with all the above without such being conditioned upon you and the collective?

Did any one say I did not or could not?

The points you made surely cannot appear from nowhere without "you" as a subject within all-there-is.

WHAT exactly is the thing that lead you to even think otherwise?

A subject with the object, the Universe, does NOT HAVE TO look at things subjectively.

In saying that, of course a newly born subject will look subjectively at things, that is; UNTIL they either discover a way to look at things completely objectively, OR, they are taught a way to look at things objectively.

It only takes one 'subject', subjective person, to discover some thing more or anew, in order for other subjects to learn, some thing more or anew as well. How long that can take to happen depends on how subjective a person IS, or people ARE.

There is NOT just one way to look at many things, there is ALSO many ways to look at one thing. For example that thing I just wrote.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can not have objective conception. But you can see objectively. There is a BIG difference.

The above is another of your ignorant and stupid point.

Ignorant to what, and, what does 'stupid' mean, to you?

Ignorant = lacking knowledge, in this case ignorant of your own psychology and your ignoring of realistic knowledge.

Stupid = Inefficient in the proper subsumption of premises, i.e. engaging in non-sequitor of premises.

Things are seen [sensed] subjectively.

And, things can also be seen [understood] objectively.

Knowledge is enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason] via consensus.

Agreed that consensus FORMS objectivity or not.

But knowledge is NOT always enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason]. This has been proven countless times already. Not just by you, but by me also.

Depending on the way one looks at things, this then influences if knowledge is enabled objectively or subjectively.

You do realize that ALL of this is solely depended upon the definitions that were are each giving to the words and to the terms we use, right?

Note knowledge is always objective, the most credible knowledge is scientific knowledge that that is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

What is purely subjective can only is opinion or beliefs.

Your perspective of objective knowledge is groundless and based on an illusion.
This illusion I argue is only driven by your desperate psychological state.

Why I insist you are ignorant is you ignore your empirical self and the desperate psychology within which you can sense yourself if you sense deep enough.

That is the BIG difference.

YES, when YOU look at it that way.

NO, when YOU look at it another way. And,

PARTLY, when YOU look at it in another completely different way.

That is the reality, i.e. reality is relative never absolute.
How can the unconditioned ever emerge out of the conditioned?

Btw, how are your views of the absolute all-there-is useful to humanity other than fulfilling your own desperate existential psychological needs?
I agree there are some utility re the views of the absolute all-there-is but the cons are outweighing its pros toward the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I find most of your counter views very stupid.

I KNOW. You said this previously, and previously when you said the same thing, I said the same, I KNOW.

You do NOT have to keep repeating it, unless of course it makes you feel just that little bit better about yourself in some way. If it does, then go right ahead and keep doing it.

As I had stated 'repetition is one of the most useful element/feature in ensuring efficient communication."
You can always put it is aside if you are already aware of it.

e.g.

'

Reality' is NOT ALL-there-IS.

ALL-THERE-IS is 'ALL-THERE-IS', or more commonly known as the Universe.

'Reality' is completely different to ALL-THERE-IS.

The above is one good example of nonsense you are spouting.
I am not going to waste time dealing with all those stupid points you presented.

Okay do not do that. But since you presented this "stupid" point of mine up.

Explain to the readers and listeners WHY you BELIEVE that this is a good example of nonsense I am sprouting. Just saying this is nonsense does NOT show in any way whatsoever why you believe it is nonsense.

You are an expert and pointing out what is stupid and nonsense to you, (which by the way we ALL KNOW what is stupid and nonsense to you), but you are very inept as actually explaining WHY it is stupid and nonsense to you. ONLY when you do that is it possible to for me to show the readers and listeners WHERE and HOW you are distorting what I am actually writing and saying.

Isn't your this,
ALL-THERE-IS is 'ALL-THERE-IS'
something that is stupid relative the level of philosophy we are engaged in?

I have stated, you are stupid because your desperate existential psychology has blinded you to discuss issues rationally.

You are stupid because if anyone were to discuss about 'one's self' and your own psychological state, you will dismiss it as nonsense and not objective.

Here are a few stupid points I will address.

I am NOT arguing for that at ALL. I do NOT participate in the ridiculousness, stupid and general waste of time that is "debating".

Then why are you participating in this forum.

ONLY to learn how to communicate better. I have already proven that so called "philosophy" in the past couple of hundred years has NOT produced any beneficial outcome of any real purpose.

This is what I meant by stupidity i.e. the wholesale dismissal of the mentioned database of human knowledge.
Fact is the philosophy propounded by Kant, Hume, Heidegger and many others has been useful to many fields of knowledge that has benefited humanity.

Debating and philosophizing in the terms you use the words is a completely closed way of looking and seeing the world and thus a complete waste of time. But a philosophy forum, where people generally of the same ilk hang out, is a great place to learn how to communicate better. If I can get just one person in a philosophy forum to OPEN up, in order to be able to discover and see answers for and by them self, then I KNOW I would have succeeded in what I have set out all along.

'Birds of feather' and their agreement do not absolutely mean there is something positive. Note the consensus between believers of theistic religions.

I believe your ideas will lead to something like radical advaita and the belief in the impersonal Absolute independent of everything that is taken to be objective real by rational and wise people.

- the illusory realm of relative reality was ultimately irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Advaita

It is only true in your la la land since nothing in the humanity's collective database of knowledge matter to you.

You are RIGHT in that nothing in human being's collective database of knowledge, which is obviously false, wrong, and incorrect, matters.

I have already explained, but again you probably over-looked it completely, is the fact that WHAT DOES ACTUALLY MATTER is what ALL human being's collectively AGREE UPON. ALL the rest that is in disagreement does NOT matter one iota. If some thing can be argued, then it is not worth arguing about.

That is only an ideal, but whatever is an ideal when reified is an illusion.
What you are saying is 'WHAT DOES ACTUALLY MATTER' is the illusion within the minds of the ideal person.
My point is absolute agreement [illusory] must be complemented with disagreements in certain perspectives, e.g. morality and others.

So what if they are contentious issue? That is the main issue with reason and logic. Only when what is in contention comes into agreement, then the rest all falls into place naturally.

If the words 'existence', 'is', and 'absolute perfection' are without any basis of 'reality', then WHY are the words in 'existence'? WHY do you use those words, and WHY do you appear to insist they are all very contentious issues without any basis of reality? Let us start by waiting your response to WHAT does 'reality' mean first, before I ask you to reveal WHAT do the other four words mean, and before I will ask you if YOUR definition is a subjective one or an objective one.

Existence is not a predicate.
e.g. "An apple exists"
Exists in this case is not a predicate, but there is an implied predicate in that statement.
The fact is 'an apple exists as a fruit, etc."
The fact "an apple exists as a fruit, etc." can be objectively proven with Science or common sense [lesser degree].
In this case "exist" or "IS" is merely a copula that connect the subject with its predicate to express an object. To establish the reality of the object, it must be objectively justified with the appropriate proofs.

Thus in the case of 'God exists' there is also an implied predicate, e.g.

• God exists as a bearded man in the sky.
  God exists as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity.
  God exists an an ontological being or entity.
  God exists as blah, blah, blah

For all the above claims, God must be proven and justified to be real & objective based on valid and sound proofs, empirical or otherwise.
Surely you are not going to accept a theist who claim "my God is real and it has commanded me to kill you." A judge will definitely ask for evidence to such a claim.
Since Science is the most reliable knowledge, then the one who claim "God exists as ...." need to prove at least basing on the Scientific Method.

What you are insisting is the rejecting all basis of human knowledge and depending on illusory basis that cannot be justified at all. This is what most schizos would do, they claim their experience is real while the rest of the world who questioned the schizo's claim is deemed to be unreal.

Is not the whole point of each different word and term so that it has a different meaning or definition from another word and term so that is COULD BE easier to better understand the 'world', Universe, we live in, and, be able to better communicate that understanding with each other? Does not the different terms and words with their different definitions and meanings allows us more easily better understand the many different things that there are within the Universe?

The terms by themselves are groundless.

How many terms, by themselves, are NOT groundless?

Feel free to list as many as you like here for all of us to see.

There are no absolute grounds.
That apple existing on the table is not groundless as it can be proven empirically via Science and rational arguments plus even common sense.

Your claims are groundless.
The only ground to your claim is your psychological state from your empirical-I and these can be proven and inferred empirically.

"Existence" is not a predicate.
"is" is merely a copula
Absolute perfection is an illusion.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it. I am NOT here to convince you of any thing different.

I am just here to learn how to show you how to OPEN up so that you can see that actual and real truth of things, for and by your self.

What is there to OPEN up?
I believe I have covered sufficient grounds to understand more realistic openness than you.

I am suggesting you should do an OPEN-UP of what is within your brain and understand the desperate existential psychology within that is compelling you to think [constipated] the way you do.

If you exist, then that is because of the Universe, Itself.
If the Universe did NOT exist, then neither would you.
You are existing.

Note there are counter arguments to the above.
One point is 'humans exist because of the Universe' and 'the Universe exists because of humans.'

BUT, they are NOT counter arguments to the EXACT SAME thing. They are just two different ways of looking, at the same ONE and ONLY thing. There is ONLY ONE objective Truth, but, there are just as many different subjective truths as there are subjective ones looking.

I repeat again.
What is objective is merely intersubjective, i.e. consensus among subjects not merely on words and meaning but based on a spontaneous emergent reality.

The is no "ONLY ONE objective Truth."
Whatever is objectively true [intersubjectively true] is conditioned by the various Framework and System relied upon.
There are the scientific truths which are conditioned by the Scientific Framework, System and Method.
There are legal, social, political, economics, mathematics, geometry, sports, etc. truths which are conditioned by their specific Framework and System.

Your "ONLY ONE objective Truth" truth is conditioned by your own brain/mind and the desperate psychology within and this area of philosophy is dealt within Metaphysics and psychiatry.

The points you made surely cannot appear from nowhere without "you" as a subject within all-there-is.

WHAT exactly is the thing that lead you to even think otherwise?

A subject with the object, the Universe, does NOT HAVE TO look at things subjectively.

In saying that, of course a newly born subject will look subjectively at things, that is; UNTIL they either discover a way to look at things completely objectively, OR, they are taught a way to look at things objectively.

It only takes one 'subject', subjective person, to discover some thing more or anew, in order for other subjects to learn, some thing more or anew as well. How long that can take to happen depends on how subjective a person IS, or people ARE.

There is NOT just one way to look at many things, there is ALSO many ways to look at one thing. For example that thing I just wrote.

As I had argued 'you' the subject is part and parcel of all-there-is.
How can you isolate your physical body and mind to generate an independent view of all-there-is?
You cannot, that is why subjectivity,i.e. inter-subjectivity is the fundamental of objectivity.

[Age]

The above is another of your ignorant and stupid point.

Ignorant to what, and, what does 'stupid' mean, to you?

Ignorant = lacking knowledge, in this case ignorant of your own psychology and your ignoring of realistic knowledge.

If you BELIEVE that you have the ability to say that another is ignorant of their own psychology, then you would be able to produce such evidence to back this up. You may begin now ...

Let us just say if you do NOT objectively KNOW the difference between 'you' and 'I', then just maybe the one who is ignorant of their own psychology is NOT the 'I'?

Are you able to accurately and sufficiently answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' and KNOW that is a sufficient and accurate enough answer for EVERY One, and not just 'you', the subjective little human being, then go right and and provide the answer. But if you are unable to then who or what is ignorant of their own psychology?

In fact do you even KNOW the difference between who/what you think you are and who/what I really am? Are you even able to explain who/what a human being IS, and have that explanation agreed upon by most human beings, let alone ALL human beings?

YOUR statement, "... your ignoring of realistic knowledge." IS the very thing I have been accusing you of doing. That is, you insist you are RIGHT because your "realistic" knowledge IS what you BELIEVE IS RIGHT. You do NOT show any evidence nor proof to back up what you BELIEVE, you just say IT IS RIGHT.

To you, if any one says any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true, then ALL you do is say that is NOT realistic knowledge.

Another person in this forum is also telling you to stop just saying things like;
you are wrong
what you say is not real

We both instruct you to show WHAT is wrong. Show WHAT is NOT real. And I say, more importantly show WHY it is supposedly wrong and WHY it is supposedly not real. Until you do that all you are doing is just showing your own opinions and beliefs. You need to show substance if you want others to understand.

If you BELIEVE that you have the ability to KNOW what is realistic knowledge, then provide IT. Obviously if it realistic knowledge, then you you could write it down in a completely unambiguous fact that could not be logically disputed with reason, by anyone. I have yet seen you provide any thing near close. For example your conclusion that God is an impossibility I have already expressed WHY it is WRONG. That is you do not have a sufficient nor even closely accurate definition for God yet. You are not even close to obtaining the very first necessary premise before you even try to begin to argue for some thing.

Stupid = Inefficient in the proper subsumption of premises, i.e. engaging in non-sequitor of premises.

Is that objective knowledge or subjective knowledge? What is the consensus on YOUR definition? How many people would actually agree that that IS the actual and real objective meaning of the word 'stupid'? Is the same meaning given in ALL dictionaries for the word 'stupid'? Is it in fact even in one dictionary? SHOULD all people change the meaning that they give the word 'stupid' so that they ALL fit into your version? Is it just by pure coincidence that the meaning/definition that you give to the word 'stupid' now fits in exactly at the exact right precise moment that you want to discuss my inefficient way to argue? Or, do you think you have changed THE meaning of the word 'stupid' to fit in with the way you are thinking, in that precise moment?

Remember that it was YOU you have said things along the line that words HAVE precise definitions and meanings, which ALL should be aware of when discussing matters. For example, you insist that the wikipedia's versions definition of 'God' is generally accepted enough by everyone, including hawking, that when you write and say, "God is an impossibility" everyone should easily understand, and accept, this to be the ultimate truth of things.

You accuse me of being inefficient in the proper subsumption of premises and that the conclusions or statements i make do not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. YET, i have not ever begun to make any real arguments here, all I have ever really stated in this thread is;
Without the actual and real definition for 'God' accepted and agreed upon by everyone, then you can NOT successfully argue and arrive at the conclusion that God is an impossibility. Remember it is YOU who is trying to form an argument here. I have NOT.

Talk about WHO is NOT even beginning with a proper subsumption premise but who has JUMPED forward to a conclusion already. You have to start with some thing sound and valid (solid) before you can even begin to logically (move) to the next step or premise.

You have NOT even begun, let alone arrived at such a conclusion yet.

You are doing the exact same thing when a person arrives at the conclusion that God is real, before they have even begun to understand and define who/what God actually could/is.

Both of your type base you whole conclusion on the basis of what the BELIEF is that you already have.

Things are seen [sensed] subjectively.

And, things can also be seen [understood] objectively.

Knowledge is enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason] via consensus.

Agreed that consensus FORMS objectivity, and lack of consensus forms subjectivity.

But knowledge is NOT always enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason]. This has been proven countless times already. Not just by you, but by me also.

Depending on the way one looks at things, this then influences if knowledge is enabled objectively or subjectively.

You do realize that ALL of this is solely depended upon the definitions that were are each giving to the words and to the terms we use, right?

Note knowledge is always objective, the most credible knowledge is scientific knowledge that that is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

Note, NOT ALL knowledge is always objective. Unlike you I will give examples; the knowledge that we, human beings, need money to live is subjective and not objective at all. Besides the fact that it is completely WRONG knowledge it can be proven that it is subjective knowledge, which is solely depended upon what that human being has lived through. If a human beings lives all their life without money, then their knowledge is we, human beings, do not need money to live whereas the opposite is true for a human being who lives with money and ONLY looks from their own perspective. Either person can obtain knowledge but the knowledge is not objective at all but is based solely upon their own subjective prior experiences. The knowledge that we, human beings, do NOT need money to live is objective knowledge BECAUSE ALL can agree with it, basing that conclusion NOT on one's own past experiences but on what is actually real and true in life. Human beings have lived for thousands upon thousands of years without money. If EVERYONE agrees with this, then this is an unambiguous fact that is not being disputed. There is no thing disagreeing with it, therefore it is objective knowledge.

Human beings do NOT need money to live but they do NEED clean enough air to breathe in order to keep on living IS objective knowledge based on objective absolute Truth.

I need a new car so that i can go to work IS subjective knowledge based on subjective WRONG truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ignorant to what, and, what does 'stupid' mean, to you?

Ignorant = lacking knowledge, in this case ignorant of your own psychology and your ignoring of realistic knowledge.

If you BELIEVE that you have the ability to say that another is ignorant of their own psychology, then you would be able to produce such evidence to back this up. You may begin now ...

Note you have not even bother to look into that direction.
I have posted my views and provided various justifications in various threads and posts.
Here is the latest;

Religious and Spiritual Delusions in Schizophrenia
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25328

This subject is very extensive, I will not go into details here.

Let us just say if you do NOT objectively KNOW the difference between 'you' and 'I', then just maybe the one who is ignorant of their own psychology is NOT the 'I'?

Are you able to accurately and sufficiently answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' and KNOW that is a sufficient and accurate enough answer for EVERY One, and not just 'you', the subjective little human being, then go right and and provide the answer. But if you are unable to then who or what is ignorant of their own psychology?

In fact do you even KNOW the difference between who/what you think you are and who/what I really am? Are you even able to explain who/what a human being IS, and have that explanation agreed upon by most human beings, let alone ALL human beings?

I have discussed this subject very extensively.
Note I differentiated the empirical self and the transcendental self that survives physical death.
The empirical self has a hierarchy of selves.
I don't see you discussing this issue at all.

Does the Empirical-I Exist?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25283

YOUR statement, "... your ignoring of realistic knowledge." IS the very thing I have been accusing you of doing. That is, you insist you are RIGHT because your "realistic" knowledge IS what you BELIEVE IS RIGHT. You do NOT show any evidence nor proof to back up what you BELIEVE, you just say IT IS RIGHT.

To you, if any one says any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true, then ALL you do is say that is NOT realistic knowledge.

Another person in this forum is also telling you to stop just saying things like;
you are wrong
what you say is not real

We both instruct you to show WHAT is wrong. Show WHAT is NOT real. And I say, more importantly show WHY it is supposedly wrong and WHY it is supposedly not real. Until you do that all you are doing is just showing your own opinions and beliefs. You need to show substance if you want others to understand.

If you BELIEVE that you have the ability to KNOW what is realistic knowledge, then provide IT. Obviously if it realistic knowledge, then you you could write it down in a completely unambiguous fact that could not be logically disputed with reason, by anyone. I have yet seen you provide any thing near close.

I did not insist I am right based on my own opinions.
Generally I have stated the most reliable knowledge of reality is that of Science.
Therefore I am pitching your claims against Science, not my own version of reality.

For example your conclusion that God is an impossibility I have already expressed WHY it is WRONG. That is you do not have a sufficient nor even closely accurate definition for God yet. You are not even close to obtaining the very first necessary premise before you even try to begin to argue for some thing.

Nope!
You thought so but have not given convincing counters why I am wrong.

I have already given you "what is God" in relation to my thesis 'God is an Impossibility' which is generally represented in the following;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
which cover a wide range of the term 'God' which is acceptable by the majority of theists, perhaps with exception of perverts like you.

Stupid = Inefficient in the proper subsumption of premises, i.e. engaging in non-sequitor of premises.

Is that objective knowledge or subjective knowledge? What is the consensus on YOUR definition? How many people would actually agree that that IS the actual and real objective meaning of the word 'stupid'? Is the same meaning given in ALL dictionaries for the word 'stupid'? Is it in fact even in one dictionary? SHOULD all people change the meaning that they give the word 'stupid' so that they ALL fit into your version? Is it just by pure coincidence that the meaning/definition that you give to the word 'stupid' now fits in exactly at the exact right precise moment that you want to discuss my inefficient way to argue? Or, do you think you have changed THE meaning of the word 'stupid' to fit in with the way you are thinking, in that precise moment?

I accept the general definition of 'stupid' from the various dictionaries but I have added further feature in this case in reference to your stupidity, i.e. the ineffectiveness to subsume the minor premises with the major premises.

Remember that it was YOU you have said things along the line that words HAVE precise definitions and meanings, which ALL should be aware of when discussing matters. For example, you insist that the wikipedia's versions definition of 'God' is generally accepted enough by everyone, including hawking, that when you write and say, "God is an impossibility" everyone should easily understand, and accept, this to be the ultimate truth of things.

You accuse me of being inefficient in the proper subsumption of premises and that the conclusions or statements i make do not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. YET, i have not ever begun to make any real arguments here, all I have ever really stated in this thread is;
Without the actual and real definition for 'God' accepted and agreed upon by everyone, then you can NOT successfully argue and arrive at the conclusion that God is an impossibility. Remember it is YOU who is trying to form an argument here. I have NOT.

Why the fuss in all these? They are very childish.

My thesis 'God is an Impossibility' will cover all theists I know of.
Thus it will cover the God of the Abrahamic theists, the Hindu God, [represent 80% of all human] and others.
If you have your personal definition [1/5 billion] of a God I am not bothered with it which is likely to be a stupid one.
Where I can cut off the ground of the Islamic God, there will be no basis for those 'SOME' evil prone Muslims [300 million] to commit evil and violent acts in the name of a God because 'God is an impossibility' thus a non-starter and moot.

Talk about WHO is NOT even beginning with a proper subsumption premise but who has JUMPED forward to a conclusion already. You have to start with some thing sound and valid (solid) before you can even begin to logically (move) to the next step or premise.

You have NOT even begun, let alone arrived at such a conclusion yet.

You are doing the exact same thing when a person arrives at the conclusion that God is real, before they have even begun to understand and define who/what God actually could/is.

Both of your type base you whole conclusion on the basis of what the BELIEF is that you already have.

It is not based on my beliefs but my arguments start with the beliefs and acts of others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed that consensus FORMS objectivity, and lack of consensus forms subjectivity.

But knowledge is NOT always enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason]. This has been proven countless times already. Not just by you, but by me also.

Depending on the way one looks at things, this then influences if knowledge is enabled objectively or subjectively.

You do realize that ALL of this is solely depended upon the definitions that were are each giving to the words and to the terms we use, right?

Where did I agree knowledge is not necessary from conception and the intellect?

I have stated many times, knowledge-as-objective is solely from conception and the intellect [reason] i.e. based on empirical-rational justification and realization. This comes in degrees. Science provides the highest degree of knowledge-as-objective.

Anything without empirical-rational justifications is merely beliefs and opinion.
God cannot be subjected to empirical-rational justifications thus it as best a belief.

Note knowledge is always objective, the most credible knowledge is scientific knowledge that that is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

Note, NOT ALL knowledge is always objective.
Unlike you I will give examples; the knowledge that we, human beings, need money to live is subjective and not objective at all. Besides the fact that it is completely WRONG knowledge it can be proven that it is subjective knowledge, which is solely depended upon what that human being has lived through. If a human beings lives all their life without money, then their knowledge is we, human beings, do not need money to live whereas the opposite is true for a human being who lives with money and ONLY looks from their own perspective. Either person can obtain knowledge but the knowledge is not objective at all but is based solely upon their own subjective prior experiences. The knowledge that we, human beings, do NOT need money to live is objective knowledge BECAUSE ALL can agree with it, basing that conclusion NOT on one's own past experiences but on what is actually real and true in life. Human beings have lived for thousands upon thousands of years without money. If EVERYONE agrees with this, then this is an unambiguous fact that is not being disputed. There is no thing disagreeing with it, therefore it is objective knowledge.

Human beings do NOT need money to live but they do NEED clean enough air to breathe in order to keep on living IS objective knowledge based on objective absolute Truth.

I need a new car so that i can go to work IS subjective knowledge based on subjective WRONG truth.

Note my point above,
knowledge-as-objective is solely from conception and the intellect [reason] i.e. based on empirical-rational justification and realization. This comes in degrees. Science provides the highest degree of knowledge-as-objective.

"human beings, need money to live" is not necessary knowledge unless qualified in context.
It is knowledge objectively if "human beings, need money to live" is qualified to a condition where there is no means of obtaining food except with money.
It is not objective knowledge if the context includes primitive tribes living in some remote jungles.

"I believe God exists as real" is highly subjective because there is no basis for it to be proven via any empirical-rational basis.

"I believe my empirical self exists' is objective knowledge as I can personal prove it with direct experience and the whole world can prove my existence as a living empirical-self if I were to stand and interact with all of people.

"I believe I have a soul that can survive physical death" is subjective and illusory because there is no basis [empirical-rational] there is a soul existing after the person is dead.

[TimeSeeker]

6th question Veritas Aequitas cannot answer: What is the PROCEDURE by which me, or you or anybody can determine an 'impossibility'? What makes something 'impossible' ? What makes something 'possible'?

You preach framework consensus, so lets define and agree to a framework in which WE (You and I) determine 'possibility' or 'impossibility'

Practice what you preach and SHOW US how we reach consensus!

Generally I have stated the most reliable knowledge of reality is that of Science.
Therefore I am pitching your claims against Science, not my own version of reality.

Generally the general overlooks the particular. And in particular the particular is sometimes right and the general is wrong.

And so in this particular case, I am asking you to practice what you preach. Show me a SCIENTIFIC procedure for determining 'possible' vs 'impossible'.

[Age]

Agreed that consensus FORMS objectivity, and lack of consensus forms subjectivity.

But knowledge is NOT always enabled objectively by conception and intellectually [reason]. This has been proven countless times already. Not just by you, but by me also.

Depending on the way one looks at things, this then influences if knowledge is enabled objectively or subjectively.

You do realize that ALL of this is solely depended upon the definitions that were are each giving to the words and to the terms we use, right?

Where did I agree knowledge is not necessary from conception and the intellect?

Where did, I say, you agree knowledge is not necessary from conception and the intellect?

I have stated many times, knowledge-as-objective is solely from conception and the intellect [reason] i.e. based on empirical-rational justification and realization. This comes in degrees. Science provides the highest degree of knowledge-as-objective.

Science does NOT provide the highest degree of knowledge-as-objective.

Anything without empirical-rational justifications is merely beliefs and opinion.
God cannot be subjected to empirical-rational justifications thus it as best a belief.

If God can not be subjected to empirical-rational justifications, as you propose here, then HOW can you rationally draw the conclusion God is an impossibility? Nor, that God is possible? At best, according to your, own logic, both, at best, are just BELIEFS.

Note knowledge is always objective, the most credible knowledge is scientific knowledge that that is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

Note, NOT ALL knowledge is always objective.
Unlike you I will give examples; the knowledge that we, human beings, need money to live is subjective and not objective at all. Besides the fact that it is completely WRONG knowledge it can be proven that it is subjective knowledge, which is solely depended upon what that human being has lived through. If a human beings lives all their life without money, then their knowledge is we, human beings, do not need money to live whereas the opposite is true for a human being who lives with money and ONLY looks from their own perspective. Either person can obtain knowledge but the knowledge is not objective at all but is based solely upon their own subjective prior experiences. The knowledge that we, human beings, do NOT need money to live is objective knowledge BECAUSE ALL can agree with it, basing that conclusion NOT on one's own past experiences but on what is actually real and true in life. Human beings have lived for thousands upon thousands of years without money. If EVERYONE agrees with this, then this is an unambiguous fact that is not being disputed. There is no thing disagreeing with it, therefore it is objective knowledge.

Human beings do NOT need money to live but they do NEED clean enough air to breathe in order to keep on living IS objective knowledge based on objective absolute Truth.

I need a new car so that i can go to work IS subjective knowledge based on subjective WRONG truth.

Note my point above,
knowledge-as-objective is solely from conception and the intellect [reason] i.e. based on empirical-rational justification and realization. This comes in degrees.

You say that knowledge-as-objective comes in degrees. What is the range of degrees? From what to what?

Science provides the highest degree of knowledge-as-objective.

Science, itself, does NOT provide any thing at all. People who say that do science provide things. The outcomes from people who do science have been WRONG countless times before. Countless times what was once seen as the highest degree of objective TRUE and RIGHT knowledge, at one time, was discovered actually to be FALSE and WRONG subjective knowledge.

By the way have the people who do science all agreed, with YOUR conclusion, that God is an impossibility?

"human beings, need money to live" is not necessary knowledge unless qualified in context.
It is knowledge objectively if "human beings, need money to live" is qualified to a condition where there is no means of obtaining food except with money.

But there is ALWAYS means of obtaining food without money.

You are so, what is wrongly known as, "brain-washed" that you are incapable to look at this OBJECTIVELY. You are not yet able to look at things completely objectively because you can NOT stop looking subjectively. By the very fact that you wrote above just shows how much you are influenced by the society that you live that when you look at things you are only able to see from the human being's perspective and from the time it is living in.

"I believe God exists as real" is highly subjective because there is no basis for it to be proven via any empirical-rational basis.

But THERE ARE countless empirical-rational bases that already do prove that God exists as real. But you are totally incapable of being able to see any of them or even this fact. That is, BECAUSE of your BELIEFS, which are formed from the life and times that that human body lives in. You are incapable of seeing the whole and big picture. You have a very narrow field-of-view, from which is the only thing you look from and through.

"I believe my empirical self exists' is objective knowledge

Starting off by using the words 'I believe ...' by definition instantly turns the rest of the statement into SUBJECTIVE knowledge.

You are coming from a subjective view, and stating it so.

as I can personal prove it with direct experience and the whole world can prove my existence as a living empirical-self if I were to stand and interact with all of people.

Just like 'God' does or does not exist, the same principle applies for 'empirical-self'. You will have to define 'empirical-self' BEFORE you even begin to TRY TO prove its existence.

Now, how do you define 'empirical-self'?

Once you do that sufficiently and accurately enough, THEN you can go ahead and TRY TO prove what it is that you are wanting to try to prove. BUT, you would NOT have to prove any thing because if your definition IS accurate then everyone else would be in agreement, and then the objective truth would already be KNOWN, if the 'empirical-self' exists or not.

Definitions explained in unambiguous indisputable facts do NOT need proof. They speak for themselves.

And, this will have when the correct definition for God is once and for all discovered.

You just to learn how to look at things properly in order to KNOW how to find the correct definition of ALL words.

"I believe I have a soul that can survive physical death" is subjective and illusory because there is no basis [empirical-rational] there is a soul existing after the person is dead.

But there is a very strong empirical-rational basis. But again you are so blinded by your own BELIEFS that, that is illusory, that you are again incapable of even beginning to look at this.

I wonder how many people have also noticed that whatever is not of veritas aequitas's BELIEF is subjective knowledge, and, what is of their BELIEF is objective knowledge?

Objective knowledge is not necessarily what you BELIEVE is true, and, subjective knowledge is not necessarily what you BELIEVE is wrong. Your own BELIEFS are the very thing that is causing you to be incapable of looking accurately and incapable of seeing and understanding correctly.

Objective knowledge is obtained from and through every thing's perspective and is that knowledge that is agreed upon by ALL, with the added note that that knowledge is not necessarily final knowledge. And, subjective knowledge is obtained from and through some thing's perspective and is that knowledge that is NOT agreed upon by ALL.

There is nothing complex nor hard to understand about that.

[Age]

Ignorant = lacking knowledge, in this case ignorant of your own psychology and your ignoring of realistic knowledge.

If you BELIEVE that you have the ability to say that another is ignorant of their own psychology, then you would be able to produce such evidence to back this up. You may begin now ...

Note you have not even bother to look into that direction.
I have posted my views and provided various justifications in various threads and posts.
Here is the latest;

Religious and Spiritual Delusions in Schizophrenia
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25328

This subject is very extensive, I will not go into details here.

You write to me, that I am ignorant of MY own psychology.
I write back to you, that if you knew that I was ignorant of my own psychology, then that means you would KNOW MY OWN psychology, and then you would be able to produce such evidence to back this up.
You respond with, that I have not even bothered to look in that direction. And, you provide links to things you written previously.
I will now ask, What DIRECTION are you going on about? And, what has that link got to do with MY psychology?

Did you write that linked post, previous to telling ME that I do not know MY own psychology, knowing that it was about ME, and that you would be able to show it to ME one day to prove MY OWN psychology?

Either you KNOW my own person psychology or you do not.
If you do know my own personal psychology, then could you really have possibly written about MY own personal psychology in another thread in another time, without even knowing me?
If you do not know my own personal psychology, but you wrote that linked post knowing that that is based on human beings psychology, then that would mean that that link applies to ALL human beings, and you being one of them would then apply to YOU also. Which one is correct? If neither then explain WHAT is correct, and, WHY it is correct.

To read your links would be to learn just how little you really KNOW all up, let alone how much little you especially really KNOW about ME, and Who I really am.

You have to KNOW your self, BEFORE you KNOW what psychology IS. How many human beings actually KNOW who they are? How many can actually answer the question 'Who am 'I'', correctly?

Let us just say if you do NOT objectively KNOW the difference between 'you' and 'I', then just maybe the one who is ignorant of their own psychology is NOT the 'I'?

Are you able to accurately and sufficiently answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' and KNOW that is a sufficient and accurate enough answer for EVERY One, and not just 'you', the subjective little human being, then go right and and provide the answer. But if you are unable to then who or what is ignorant of their own psychology?

In fact do you even KNOW the difference between who/what you think you are and who/what I really am? Are you even able to explain who/what a human being IS, and have that explanation agreed upon by most human beings, let alone ALL human beings?

I have discussed this subject very extensively.

If you call that extensively, then you KNOW less than what I previously thought you did.

Note I differentiated the empirical self and the transcendental self that survives physical death.
The empirical self has a hierarchy of selves.
I don't see you discussing this issue at all.

The reason you do NOT see ME discussing this issue at all IS because this is the first time it has been brought up. Another reason you do NOT see ME discussing this issue at all IS because this is NOT the issue at hand here in this thread.

The issue at hand here in THIS THREAD is YOUR definition for 'God', and, IF God is an impossibility or not.

WHY do you keep trying to side-step the real issue, in this thread?

Does the Empirical-I Exist?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25283

YOUR statement, "... your ignoring of realistic knowledge." IS the very thing I have been accusing you of doing. That is, you insist you are RIGHT because your "realistic" knowledge IS what you BELIEVE IS RIGHT. You do NOT show any evidence nor proof to back up what you BELIEVE, you just say IT IS RIGHT.

To you, if any one says any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true, then ALL you do is say that is NOT realistic knowledge.

Another person in this forum is also telling you to stop just saying things like;
you are wrong
what you say is not real

We both instruct you to show WHAT is wrong. Show WHAT is NOT real. And I say, more importantly show WHY it is supposedly wrong and WHY it is supposedly not real. Until you do that all you are doing is just showing your own opinions and beliefs. You need to show substance if you want others to understand.

If you BELIEVE that you have the ability to KNOW what is realistic knowledge, then provide IT. Obviously if it realistic knowledge, then you you could write it down in a completely unambiguous fact that could not be logically disputed with reason, by anyone. I have yet seen you provide any thing near close.

I did not insist I am right based on my own opinions.

You may not have consciously done it and you may have thought you have not written words to that affect, but your words actually prove that you BELIEVE you are right based on your very own opinions, views, assumptions AND beliefs.

Generally I have stated the most reliable knowledge of reality is that of Science.
Therefore I am pitching your claims against Science, not my own version of reality.

But you have NOT used any thing of scientific substance to back up your BELIEF.

Also just stating things like above does NOT make them correct nor really help you anyway.

From how I see it, your argument still stands;
P1. I BELIEVE God is an impossibility.
C. Therefore God is an impossibility.

For example your conclusion that God is an impossibility I have already expressed WHY it is WRONG. That is you do not have a sufficient nor even closely accurate definition for God yet. You are not even close to obtaining the very first necessary premise before you even try to begin to argue for some thing.

Nope!
You thought so but have not given convincing counters why I am wrong.

The convincing counter I have given is NOT that you are wrong at all. You may well be 100% correct in saying that God is an impossibility. The convincing counter I have given is that your whole argument is WRONG. That is, you have to start with a premise that is true, right, and correct. And, then logically continue on with the argument.

We will be able to see if the conclusion to your argument is correct after you get the beginning correct.

I have already given you "what is God" in relation to my thesis 'God is an Impossibility' which is generally represented in the following;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
which cover a wide range of the term 'God' which is acceptable by the majority of theists, perhaps with exception of perverts like you.

Well it just may be perverts like ME who can come up with a definition for God that is acceptable and in agreement with EVERYONE. Because the multitude different interpretations of multiple different definitions that you human beings have come up and continually come up with is ridiculous.

Again, you are basing your "majority of theists" on a BELIEF you have rather than on any actual concrete evidence. You do this continually throughout this forum. That is, you base your so called objective based conclusions solely on your very own already gained BELIEFS.

You are about one of the most subjective based thinking persons I have seen for a while. Even your view that the wikipedia version of 'God' is the most accurate and reliable one shows just how subjective based you are. You are ONLY able to look and see from the most narrowest of views, which is solely based upon the life and times that that body lives in.

Stupid = Inefficient in the proper subsumption of premises, i.e. engaging in non-sequitor of premises.

Is that objective knowledge or subjective knowledge? What is the consensus on YOUR definition? How many people would actually agree that that IS the actual and real objective meaning of the word 'stupid'? Is the same meaning given in ALL dictionaries for the word 'stupid'? Is it in fact even in one dictionary? SHOULD all people change the meaning that they give the word 'stupid' so that they ALL fit into your version? Is it just by pure coincidence that the meaning/definition that you give to the word 'stupid' now fits in exactly at the exact right precise moment that you want to discuss my inefficient way to argue? Or, do you think you have changed THE meaning of the word 'stupid' to fit in with the way you are thinking, in that precise moment?

I accept the general definition of 'stupid' from the various dictionaries but I have added further feature in this case in reference to your stupidity, i.e. the ineffectiveness to subsume the minor premises with the major premises.

So, you did change or add on features to a definition so that it would then fit in with your already held views. Thank you. That is the kind of honesty I have been looking for out of you.

See, my friends, just HOW MUCH previously held beliefs and preconceptions can interfere with and distort people's ability to be able to look at and see things for how they really are. Human beings will change just about any thing so that it then suits with and to their already gained preconceptions.

Remember that it was YOU you have said things along the line that words HAVE precise definitions and meanings, which ALL should be aware of when discussing matters. For example, you insist that the wikipedia's versions definition of 'God' is generally accepted enough by everyone, including hawking, that when you write and say, "God is an impossibility" everyone should easily understand, and accept, this to be the ultimate truth of things.

You accuse me of being inefficient in the proper subsumption of premises and that the conclusions or statements i make do not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. YET, i have not ever begun to make any real arguments here, all I have ever really stated in this thread is;
Without the actual and real definition for 'God' accepted and agreed upon by everyone, then you can NOT successfully argue and arrive at the conclusion that God is an impossibility. Remember it is YOU who is trying to form an argument here. I have NOT.

Why the fuss in all these? They are very childish.

Once again, when you are shown for what you are doing. The best and ONLY response you can give is, "childish", "stupid", "why the fuss", et cetera.

My thesis 'God is an Impossibility' will cover all theists I know of.

How many do you KNOW?

Thus it will cover the God of the Abrahamic theists, the Hindu God, [represent 80% of all human] and others.

So, do you really BELIEVE that 80% of all human beings are going to accept YOUR DEFINITION of God, and therefore also accept your conclusion that God is an impossibility?

If you have your personal definition [1/5 billion] of a God I am not bothered with it which is likely to be a stupid one.

My very point I have been showing all along. If some thing is NOT what another wants to see, then they will NOT look at it. If some thing goes against a person's BELIEF, then that prevents them wholeheartedly from just even looking at, let alone proceeding any further. Also, that belief will allow them to make up some sort of assumption so that will reinforce their "reasoned" response to NOT look at any thing else other than what they already BELIEVE IS TRUE. The added on bit at the end of this quoted last remark is just MORE evidence of how smart the brain THINKS it is.

[TimeSeeker]

Here is a totally arbitrary perspective. Has it occurred to anybody that from a phenomenological perspective people need to label their experiences of reality?

And so naturally it appears to them that SOMETHING is responsible for the world always changing. Right in front of their eyes!

Could that uncertainty/lack of understanding, yet RECOGNITION of the phenomena unfolding be what they cal 'God'?

This phenomenon can cause earthquakes! This phenomenon can cause famine! This phenomenon can cause tsunamis! It can cause death and destruction! Clearly it is VERY powerful. Certainly more powerful than a bunch of over-evolved apes.

It only LOOKS AS IF it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. But that TOO is an illusion. Because there is no such thing as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

There is only something more aware than YOU, something smarter than YOU, something more powerful than YOU!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have stated many times, knowledge-as-objective is solely from conception and the intellect [reason] i.e. based on empirical-rational justification and realization. This comes in degrees. Science provides the highest degree of knowledge-as-objective.

Science does NOT provide the highest degree of knowledge-as-objective.

In addition to mathematics, if not what else?

Despite scientific knowledge is knowledge-as-objective of the highest degree, it is as best 'polished conjectures' [Popper].

Anything without empirical-rational justifications is merely beliefs and opinion.
God cannot be subjected to empirical-rational justifications thus it as best a belief.

If God can not be subjected to empirical-rational justifications, as you propose here, then HOW can you rationally draw the conclusion God is an impossibility? Nor, that God is possible? At best, according to your, own logic, both, at best, are just BELIEFS.

For anything to be proven real, it must firstly be rationally justified to be empirically possible via abduction to generate a feasible/possible hypothesis before it can be subjected to the empirical-rational justification process.

The following argument prove the idea of God is a non-starter and moot.

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

It is like trying to prove a square-circle exists.
This hypothesis is an impossibility due to the thing being contradictory.