God is an Impossibility

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

There is no such thing as absolute empirical knowledge.
As such what we have is relative empirical knowledge.
Relative empirical knowledge comes in degree in relation to the basis of justification.
There are many sources of knowledge that are objective.
For example speculative scientific knowledge is relatively less objective than proven scientific theories.
Legal facts/knowledge from a court of law is less reliable than Science, thus relatively a difference in degree.

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?

Science itself does not provide any thing at all?? That is a crazy talk.
The Framework and System of Science generate objective scientific knowledge.

Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility.
To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world. Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

The resultant knowledge of Science "has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology."

"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.

Did you read, I qualified very clearly i.e. "a condition where there is no means of obtaining food except with 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.

What is objectivity without subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity.
The basis of our most reliable objective knowledge of Science is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective, that is why scientific knowledge can change with new evidence.
What is critical with scientific knowledge is its semi-permanence and its usefulness to the survival of the human species.

Yes, I am influenced [empirically and rationally] by the human society I live in. Are you saying you are living outside the non-human society/world?

"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.

What else can we live other than based on the human conditions?
Seem you are living in la la land like what a schizo is in.

Whatever the empirical-rational reality as justified by empirical-rational, they cannot be used to justify a transcendental illusion.
You cannot conflate and equivocate the empirical-rational with a transcendental illusion, like,

• All empirical realities are creations.
  God is a creator.
  Therefore God is real

The above is stupidity.

I have proven God is an impossibility and a non-starter on the default ontological God.

"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.

'I believe ...' with the highest personal conviction because that is a first person direct experience.
It is objective knowledge that 'my empirical self exists' when based on intersubjective consensus of all normal human beings stated explicitly based on empirical tests and rationally justified.

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.

The empirical-self a living person can be easily defined and tested empirically.
Your empirical self is the self, i.e. the person you can experience and test empirically.
It is also the empirical self I [scientists and the whole world] can test empirically by observation of your living physical self and testing your mental capabilities.

Why should I define God when I am a non-theists.
I have presented all the available definition of God by various theists.
None of these God[s] can be proven empirically.

Where theists claimed their God is that 'bearded man in the sky who created the universe' then bring that bearded man for verification and testing?

Where theists claimed their God is the default non-empirical and rational ontological God, I have proven rationally this is an impossibility.

"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.

What I am insisting is direct empirical-rational proofs like proving the sun, the moon, water, and the likes are empirically real.

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.

It is not my belief that matters.
What matters is the claimant of any truth must provide empirical-rational proofs to the whole world [not just me] for their claims.

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.

Agree, knowledge available at present is not final knowledge.
But the principle is, all knowledge must at least be empirically and rationally possible.
The claim that God exists which is without any empirical and rational basis is an impossibility.

To insist the both faces you see here are normal is arrogance based on ignorance.
That is what you are doing in claiming God exists as real which is a self-deception.

[TimeSeeker]

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

There is no such thing as "unambiguous" when it comes to English. Go ahead and try it!

[Age]

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.

P1. WHO says 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility to be real? WHY is it said to be an impossibility to be real? WHAT evidence is there for this?
P2. Accepted and agreed.
C. That is only if P1 is an unambiguous fact that can NOT be disputed, which can very easily be disputed.

[Age]

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

There is no such thing as "unambiguous" when it comes to English. Go ahead and try it!

I think you will find that it was I who wrote that.

What do you mean by what you wrote? What is the relationship to english? Go ahead and try what exactly?

[TimeSeeker]

What do you mean by what you wrote? What is the relationship to english? Go ahead and try what exactly?

Go ahead and make an unambiguous claim about reality. In English.

I come from a place of epistemology where this is mantra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

[Age]

What do you mean by what you wrote? What is the relationship to english? Go ahead and try what exactly?

Go ahead and make an unambiguous claim about reality. In English.

How do you define 'reality'?

[Age]

What do you mean by what you wrote? What is the relationship to english? Go ahead and try what exactly?

Go ahead and make an unambiguous claim about reality. In English.

I come from a place of epistemology where this is mantra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

Well that explains MORE where those distorted BELIEFS, which you clearly have, come from. Following others you usually end up where you are now.

[TimeSeeker]

How do you define 'reality'?

Yeah. I don't play the define(x) game. Define it yourself

My definition will be wrong.

The best I can do for you is equivocate myself: Reality. .a.k.a THe Universe a.k.a all that exists. a.k.a nature a.k.a this place that we find ourselves in.

What the Russians call вселенная.
What the Chinese call 宇宙.
What the Spanish call Universo.
What the French call Univers.
What the Germans call Universum.
What the Israelis call היקום
What the Indians call ब्रम्हांड
What the Scotts call Cruinne-cè

To define The Universe in the language of Mathematics is precisely the goal of Science. We have not succeeded yet...

In the language of Intuitionistic Type Theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition ... erse_types
For more reading on Constructive Type theory read here: http://www2.math.uu.se/~palmgren/universe.pdf

[TimeSeeker]

Well that explains MORE where those distorted BELIEFS, which you clearly have, come from. Following others you usually end up where you are now.

Unless you are mistaken

In which case I may have ended up where I am BECAUSE I don't follow others...

How would YOU tell the difference between the two hypotheses?

It's also pretty weird, because just about any scientist I know believes. No. KNOWS that all models are wrong.

So are you claiming that scientists have distorted beliefs?

[Age]

Well that explains MORE where those distorted BELIEFS, which you clearly have, come from. Following others you usually end up where you are now.

Unless you are mistaken

In which case I may have ended up where I am BECAUSE I don't follow others...

How would YOU tell the difference between the two hypotheses?

It's also pretty weird, because just about any scientist I know believes. No. KNOWS that all models are wrong.

So are you claiming that scientists have distorted beliefs?

Yes, very much so.

Just to have a belief is a distortion in and of itself.

[TimeSeeker]

Just to have a belief is a distortion in and of itself.

So you have no beliefs?

[Age]

How do you define 'reality'?

Yeah. I don't play the define(x) game. Define it yourself

So, let me get this straight just so the readers can easily understand. You want me as you say to; "Go ahead and make an unambiguous claim about reality", yet you do not "play" the define (x) "game". You want me to make an unambiguous claim about some thing, which I ask you to clarify what that thing is, yet you will NOT or can NOT do it. WHY, some may ask?

By the way I was NOT playing a game. I just asked you a very simple clarifying question. Oh, and I have defined it. That definition fits in perfectly together with other definitions of words and forms a big and true and accurate picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

My definition will be wrong.

You may well be right, here?

The best I can do for you is equivocate myself:

How do you define 'equivocate'?

Reality. .a.k.a THe Universe a.k.a all that exists. a.k.a nature a.k.a this place that we find ourselves in.

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong, and
Wrong,

What the Russians call вселенная.
What the Chinese call 宇宙.
What the Spanish call Universo.
What the French call Univers.
What the Germans call Universum.
What the Israelis call היקום
What the Indians call ब्रम्हांड
What the Scotts call Cruinne-cè

To define The Universe in the language of Mathematics is precisely the goal of Science. We have not succeeded yet...

You, human beings, may have not yet succeeded, in that year some of you, human beings, call 2018. But I have.

In the language of Intuitionistic Type Theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition ... erse_types
For more reading on Constructive Type theory read here: http://www2.math.uu.se/~palmgren/universe.pdf

You can read, and link, as much, and more and more, of human beings' constructed knowledge, but that will NOT get you anyway. Language, as you say, IS circular. The knowledge that you are showing and using here comes from, and through, language. The only place you will arrive at reading and believing that human being knowledge is in a fast downward spiral, of which that is exactly all human beings are right now in "2018".

[TimeSeeker]

So, let me get this straight just so the readers can easily understand. You want me as you say to; "Go ahead and make an unambiguous claim about reality", yet you do not "play" the define (x) "game". You want me to make an unambiguous claim about some thing, which I ask you to clarify what that thing is, yet you will NOT or can NOT do it. WHY, some may ask?

Because my claim is ambiguous. I honest and open about it. Any definition or claim I give you about reality is contingent. It has SOME exception. An error.

By the way I was NOT playing a game. I just asked you a very simple clarifying question. Oh, and I have defined it. That definition fits in perfectly together with other definitions of words and forms a big and true and accurate picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

You mean the circular definition of the English language
You mistake the complex for the simple. You are trapped in language - I am not

You may well be right, here?

I know. All models are wrong!

How do you define 'equivocate'?

Saying the same thing using different words. Truism. No new information.

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong, and
Wrong,

I know. All models are wrong.

And yet you offer no better definition?

You, human beings, may have not yet succeeded, in that year some of you, human beings, call 2018. But I have.

Oh, you have succeeded in defining 'the universe then'? Show me! (in a Morpheus voice).

You can read, and link, as much, and more and more, of human beings' constructed knowledge, but that will NOT get you anyway. Language, as you say, IS circular. The knowledge that you are showing and using here comes from, and through, language. The only place you will arrive at reading and believing that human being knowledge is in a fast downward spiral, of which that is exactly all human beings are right now in "2018".

That "downward spiral" you have identified is called recursion. Like the Russian dolls.

Recursion is computation. It converges.

[Age]

Just to have a belief is a distortion in and of itself.

So you have no beliefs?

Yes, a very good assumption you just made, this time.

Now, continue on with what is about to take place. That is; the exact same usual things that human beings do when I place in this situation. The predictability of what is just about to happen will be becoming far more obvious to some of you readers and observers now.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, a very good assumption you just made, this time.

Now, continue on with what is about to take place. That is; the exact same usual things that human beings do when I place in this situation. The predictability of what is just about to happen will be becoming far more obvious to some of you readers and observers now.

Except I don't believe you I observe you ACTING on your BELIEFS all the time.

Also what you call "belief" and what I call "belief" is vastly different.

For example - you believe that drinking water quenches your thirst. If you didn't you'd probably be dead.
You believe that engaging in debate is beneficial. Else you wouldn't do it.

And so belief MUST have some consequences. Consequences expressed in actions OR words. A belief without consequences is a non-sensical/unscientific notion. Because a "belief" without consequences is untestable AND unfalsifiable! It is an input without an output.

P.S you didn't make any predictions. You claimed that you are going to predict something. But you didn't state what it was A PRIORI.

I guess I could say: you predicted that you are going to predict something What you didn't say if your prediction is going to be, or whether your prediction is going to be right or wrong.